with the steps we had to take to avoid the banking system melting down. i know that was not popular. it was not popular with me. here is what the recovery act did. we cut taxes for small businesses and 95% of working families to promote spending and hiring. cut taxes, that is with the recovery act did. we are cutting people put taxes across america. [applause] >> we are also making investments in our infrastructure. that creates private-sector jobs and the platform, a better environment for which

businesses can prosper. it is also what we did to the jobs bill that i signed into law just recently -- a bill that cuts taxes for small businesses that hire unemployed workers and allows companies to write off investments in equipment. it encourages building on the investments that we put in place to the recovery act. we have promoted innovation in the private sector, not just to create jobs, but also to help america lead in the growth industries of the 21st century. i want to improve the short-term job picture, but i also want to improve the long-term prospects for our economy. in no area is our country more primed to lead them than in clean energy. i did not have to tell the people here at celgard about that. for the recovery act, this company has received a matching grant to expand the facility on the site, and to add another facility in north carolina. i know this bill has done the work that the governor did to bring clean energy jobs to the state.

here is the bottom line. this investment will create nearly 300 jobs for this company, more than 1000 jobs for your contractors and suppliers -- these are all jobs helping americans build batteries that will power cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks. through investments, like this one, we are already seeing an incredible transformation across the country. here is an interesting statistic. before the recovery act, before i took office, we had the capacity to make less than 2% of the world's lithium ion batteries. less than 2%. in the next five years, on the current trajectory, we are going to be able to make 40% of these advanced batteries right here, in the united states of america. [applause]

>> the next time somebody asks you when you are at the grocery store, what does this recovery act do? you can tell them. one of the things it helped do was to expand and catalyze an entire new industry where the united states of america can gain enormous market share across the globe. that is the kind of strategy we need, helping the private sector thrive in entirely new industries, the industries of the future. it is a strategy that will not only create jobs in the near- term, but also sustained growth and opportunity in the long run. this has been a heroin time for our country. it is easy to grow cynical and wonder if our best days are behind us, especially after a

terrible crisis. we have seen folks in washington trying to play the usual politics with the crisis. that is not surprising, of course. that is how washington works. although, i think it is important for the american people to remember that the failed economic policies that got us into this mess, just so we do not returned to them. what we can see here at this plant is that the worst of the storm is over. brighter days are still ahead. in charlotte, and all across the country, we can see the promise and possibility that awaits us if we'd tap our ingenuity, our inventiveness, and our drive as a people.

if we are smart and we are willing to do what it takes, we can lead new industries that create new jobs that strengthen the middle-class. we can turn this turmoil into recovery and emerge stronger than before. i am convinced that is what we are called to do and i am confident that that is what we will do. i want to say to all of the employees here at celgard that we are proud of you be -- because you are helping to lead the way. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. you know, when they let me out of my cage in the white house, i like to actually have a chance to talk to folks. we have time for a few questions and we have some young people here in the audience with their microphones. this is not formal, even though

i am sure that with some of the cameras a few of you might feel intimidated. all you have to do is raise your hand. we will call on you. it can be a question about anything. if you could introduce yourself, it is helpful. we'll start with that young lady. >> my name is jennifer. i am from charlotte. my question is regarding an act. many people have commented on the fact that it has come at a great cost to many public organizations, we need to now assessed our internal controls over financial reporting, it has also come, many say, without a value in the recent financial crisis. what value do you think it may have going forward on the upswing as the economy goes forward? >> that is a great question. for those of you that are not aware of it, the act was instituted not in response to this financial crisis, but in response to the enron-worldcom

nonsense that took place over a decade ago. the concern was that the accounting practices of companies had gotten so out of whack, that you had a company that was essentially booking profits, driving their stock up high, ceos were making these bonuses, but it turned out that when you actually got in there and started looking, they were building a house of cards. it was manufacturing profits out of thin air. the concern was, how do we make sure that ceo's and their boards of directors are more accountable to the reporting that they are doing, so that investors, shareholders, the

market customers, suppliers and employees, a lot of home had gotten tricked into putting all of their savings into that company, then it turned up everything they were saving went up in a cloud of smoke, all those people would be protected. the intent around that act was a good idea. it was the right thing to do. there have been some legitimate criticisms about the fact that although it is a relatively modest cost for a big company, it can be a significant cost for a mid-sized or a small company because if they have to abide by all of the rules and regulations and all the double- checking, they have to hire a bunch of a conscience. -- a bunch of accountants. it is one thing if you are a fortune 100 company that has

several billion stop -- several billion dollars in revenue to spend a couple million dollars on accountants. it is another thing if you are a company that is making $100 million a year and you are spending a couple hundred and accountants. that to be the difference on your profit margins. what we are interested in doing is to work with companies to get the device. are there ways to streamline and make this more effective? are there ways to lessen the burden on small companies but still retained the basic principle that accounting standards have to be met, cleared and understandable. you cannot cook the books. and ceos and boards of directors have to be accountable for the accounting statements

that they put out there. they have to sign a bottom line. they will be directly liable if for some reason it turns out there were some shenanigans going on. this raises a broader question about regulation. we went through a time where -- i think the general theory was the less regulation, the better. if you talk to most companies, they would rather not have any regulations, whatsoever. there is nothing wrong with that. that is the nature of it. companies figure that are pretty smart. they know what they are doing. i am sure that if i talked to bob, there are a whole bunch of things that he wishes they did not have to do. it is like any other law. you put the laws in place even

though you know most folks are following the rules and operating decently to make sure the people that are not operating that way cannot read have it on the system. we will have a big debate when it comes to financial regulatory reform. you are seeing the same pattern come up right now. you essentially had a whole bunch of financial institutions -- investment banks like lehman brothers, who were taking $1, and they were able to leverage -- use that dollar to make a $60 bet on subprimal loans in housing and take huge risks that almost brought the entire system to heal. all of your friends and neighbors and communities are paying the price because nobody was minding the store and making sure that these banks and

financial institutions were following the basic rules of the road. what we now say is, look. we have to have a financial system that works. we also have to have some basic rules that we make sure we never find ourselves in a situation where we have two choices -- either you bailout the banks, where you think why my propping up the folks that caused the problem in the first place, or, you did not, and the banks start failing and the whole system breaks down, creating what could have been a great depression. we cannot allow ourselves to be put in that situation. we have to have some basic rules and regulations at the front end and say to banks will not want to let you get too big to fail. we are not want to put ourselves in a position where you are able to gamble with

other people go money in such a way that it could potentially bring down the whole system. getting the balance right on how to do that is something that you have got to be very careful about. i think now, we are starting to see a framework emerge both in the house of representatives and the senate where my hope is that we can actually get this done sometime in the next several weeks.

thank you for the great question. this gentleman, right here. >> thank you, sir. my name is michael. it is an honor to have you with us. i am concerned that your decision to allow offshore drilling could have the effect of killing an investment into alternate sources of energy. i am interested in what kind of incentives you will put in place to increase research and development in that sector. >> great question. first of all, understand that the recovery act represented the single largest investment in clean energy in history, by far. we invested in wind, solar, research and development, commercialization, battery technology -- we are interested in figuring out how we could improve efficiency both in buildings and in transportation sectors. you name it. we are all about increasing energy efficiency and finding new, renewable, clean sources of energy. it is one of my highest

priorities. it has the potential of being an enormous growth industry. here is the challenge that we have. we do not yet have the technological breakthroughs that can completely replace fossil fuels. for the next 10 years, the next 20 years, we will still be using oil. we will still be using cold. we will still be using natural gas. we will still be using the traditional sources to fuel our cars, heat our homes, run our power plants, etc. it is my hope that if we are aggressive, we could substantially cut our energy used in every sector, while still maintaining our high levels of economic growth. for example, at the announcement were at talked- about offshore drilling, i did sell in front of a fighter jet -- i did so in front of a fighter jet that will be run half on bio-mass. i was joking with the pilot. this thing runs on vegetable oil.

they will break the sound barrier using bio-mass fuel. the pentagon is invested huge amounts in energy efficiency. we are promoting one authorization across the country because -- was authorization across the country because this is a win-win situation. most of that is manufactured in the united states. it saves on individual's energy bell and it means that that power plant has to produce less energy to keep that home warm. it is a win-win across the board. that is our biggest priority. energy efficiency and renewable, clean energy, but because we are quite to have this transition, unless someone here and then something tomorrow, which will be very helpful -- if you have that, let me know we will get it going right away -- what is most likely is that we will have this transition. in the interim, we have to look at our traditional energy sources and figure out how we

can use them most effectively and in the most environmentally sound way. that is why i announced that we were going to start the first nuclear plant in 30 years. japan, france, other countries have a safe, secure, reliable and effective civilian nuclear energy. we essentially stopped 30 years ago. for those of you that are concerned about climate change, nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases. it is not a perfect energy source because it has a problem with spent fuel and how that is properly stored, but generally speaking, that will have to be part of our energy use. the decision around drilling is the same approach. what we did is we said we are not want to have drilling 1 mile off of the north carolina coast, or two miles off, but 50 miles off, 100 miles off, where it is appropriate and

environmentally sound and not risky, we should allow exploration to begin taking place to see if there are certain reserves. there are some areas that we put off limits like bristol bay in alaska where it is environmentally very sensitive. there are some areas of the coast in the gulf of mexico which do not make sense for us to allow exploration even though we know there are existing reserves there. what we did is try to look at the scientific evidence and figure out the areas that are low-risk environmentally and have a high potential upside. here is the last thing i will say about drawing. you have some environmentalists

that say do not drill anywhere. then, you have some of my friends on the republican side that were saying that this is a nice first thought, but it is not enough, you should open up everything. i do not agree that we should not do anything. it turns out that oil rigs generally did not cause films -- do not cause spills. even during katrina, they came from the refineries on shore. the notion that we can drill our way out of the problem, you start hearing about this in the

summer as soon as the gas prices started going up. every summer it is the same thing. politicians say we are what to do something about it. these days, some of my colleagues on the republican side will say you have to drill even more. just remember the statistics when you start hearing this. we account for 2% of the world's oil reserves but we used 20% of the world's oil. we use 20%, we only have 2%. we cannot drill our way out of the problem. that is why we have to get moving on the clean energy sector and we also have to make sure that we have enough supply that is regular in terms of these other traditional energy sources so that by the time we get to the clean energy sector, we have not had to sacrifice economic growth along the way. all right? all right, the gentleman right here in the white shirt. >> james hill, from greenville, south carolina. i agree. it is an honor for you to be here today. thank you. to springboard from what you're saying, how long do think it will take to have more hybrid vehicles on the road than gas vehicles and what would it take?

>> we have already seen a huge spike in the purchase of hybrid vehicles. if you think about it, just two years ago if you found out somebody had a hybrid vehicle, that was a pretty big deal. you wanted to test it out. you wanted to see how it works. now, it is pretty common. everybody here knows somebody that has a hybrid. the have probably tried it out. it is kind of cool one to back it out and it is quiet. -- when you back it out and it is quiet. i think that is the future. consumers will naturally gravitate in that direction. we're just talking about oil. not only do we produce 2% and use 20%, but countries around the world -- everybody is starting to use more oil. think about it. china.

if they get even half the number of cars per capita per population that we have right now, there are a lot of folks in china. there are a lot of folks in india. their standards of living of starting to rise and they are starting to be interested in buying cars. if they even approached the amount of car ownership that we have, oil will run out very quickly. on the way, prices will spike up naturally, no matter what we do. so, it is a huge need for us to increase our fuel efficiency on cars now.

that is why one of the things i did last year is actually taking effect this week -- raising a national fuel efficiency standard. it is the first time we have done that in a very long time. but, frankly, even with us raising those standards, i think consumers, just in terms of pocketbook interests will be even more interested in buying hybrids and electric cars. two things that we could do that would make a difference now -- we have to make sure that those cars are made here, in

the united states of america. part of the reason why it is so important to develop battery technology here is that it helps us leverage more auto production here, in the united states. that, in the same way that bob was talking about what was happening here at sell bread -- @ celgard, the grant we gave broad 300 jobs. the same is true in the auto industry. why are we bailing out gm? gm might have employed several hundred thousand, but when you look at all of the suppliers involved, and the economy, you could have seen in other couple million jobs lost that would have huge implications for the

economy. now, gm is actually making a profit, there started to hire people back. one thing we need to do is make sure they are made in the united states. the second thing we need to do is to create the electricity grid, what we are calling the "smart grid." part of the reason we can drive our cars is because there is a gas station every so often. there are roads. there are gas stations. we know how to fuel up our automobiles. if we want to have everybody getting maximum use of a hybrid car or an electric car, part of what we need to do is create a similar distribution mechanism for electricity. one of the exciting things about these hybrids is we want to get to the point where we

have a plug-in hybrid, where you have a gas station at your house called an electric socket. you'll be able to plug your car in at night. some of the energy that was stored in the car, that could add to go back into the house. then, when you are ready to go, you can get their energy and use it to drive. to do all of that, we need a better electricity grid. that is one of the major investments that we want to

start making. that, by the way it is in investment that only the government working with the private-sector can make. you are. a lot of talk these days about the government. -- you are hearing a lot of talk about the government these days. the government is horrible. look. i do not want the government any more than business as eric. there are some things that -- that is necessary. there are some things that ceo's cannot invest in. no company is going to make investment for a public good. none of you would expect a private company to fund our military. there are just some things that you cannot do on your own. the private sector is not going to do it. it is not profitable. is bob was the guy who had to build the road, -- if bob was the guy who had to build the road, he would have a bunch of people that were not paying for it. that is where government comes in. the same is true for the electricity grid. we have to create that infrastructure, just like broadband lines. that is what the chinese are doing. that is what the indians are doing. that is what the germans are doing. that is what the united states is going to have to do. i have time for a couple of more questions. this is my guy reggie, from charlotte, n.c., by the way. [applause] >> he told me he is not getting on the plane going back. he is spending the weekend here. all right. let's see. i want to make sure that i get a woman in here.

make sure that it is balanced. this young lady right here. >> thank you, mr. president. we are honored to have you here today. i work at celgard. we have wonderful ceo's that take care of us and help the company grow. my question is, in the tough times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care? we are over-taxed as it is. >> let's talk about that. this is an area where there has been a whole lot of information -- of misinformation. i will have to work hard to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions' that people have. here is the bottom line. number one is that we are the only -- we have been come up's last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million

of its citizens to not have any health insurance, and the vast majority of those folks work. it is just that but they did not happen to work for a company that is either big enough or generous enough to provide them any coverage. that is the first point. there is a moral imperative that is important. number two -- you do not know who might end up being in that situation. see, those of us who have health care right now ask ourselves well, should this be a priority right now?