losing a substantial number of jobs. we are beginning to turn the corner. this month, more americans woke up, got dressed, and headed to work at an office or factory or storefront. more folks are feeling the sense of pride and satisfaction that comes with a hard-earned and well-deserved paycheck at the end of a long week of work. as i said, just one year ago, we were losing an average of more than 700,000 jobs each month. but the tough measures that we took -- measures that were necessary even though sometimes they were unpopular -- have broken this slide and are helping us to climb out of this recession. we've now added an average of more than 50,000 jobs each month over the first quarter of this year. and this month's increase of

162,000 jobs was the best news we've seen on the job front in more than two years. [applause] now, at the same time, it's important to emphasize, while we've come a long way, we still got a ways to go. we shouldn't underestimate the difficulties we face as a country or the hardships that confront millions of our fellow citizens -- some of your friends, some of your neighbors, some of your relatives you know are still going through a tough time. eight million people have lost jobs over the past two years. that's a staggering sum. economic statistics don't do justice to the pain and anxiety that results from unemployment. lasting unemployment takes a toll on families, takes a toll on marriages, takes a toll on children. it saps the vitality of communities, especially in

places that have seen factories and other anchoring businesses shut their doors. and being unable to find work -- being able to provide for your family -- that doesn't just affect your economic security, that affects your heart and your soul. it beats you up. it's hard. so we have to be mindful that today's job numbers, while welcome, leaves us with a lot more work to do. it will take time to achieve the strong and sustained job growth that we need. and long before this recession hit -- for a decade -- middle- class families had already been expensing -- experiencing a sense of declining economic security. their paychecks were flat- lining even though the cost of

everything from groceries to college educations to health care were all going up. and this means that even as we pull out of this immediate crisis, we've got to tackle some of the long-term problems that have been a drag on our economy. and that's why we've been working so hard to turn this economy around. it's not quick and it's not easy. and the truth is, there are some limits to what government can do. government can't reverse the toll of this recession overnight, and government on its own can't replace the 8 million jobs that have been lost. the true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector, businesses like celgard. what government can do is create the conditions for companies to succeed. it can help to create the conditions for companies to hire again. what it can do is build the infrastructure and create the incentives that will allow small businesses to add workers, that will help entrepreneurs to take a chance on an idea, that will lead manufacturers to set up shop in places like charlotte.

and that's what we did last year through the recovery act, also known as the stimulus bill. a lot of folks were down on it -- well, we don't know what this did. a lot of folks got it mixed up with the steps we had to take to avoid the banking system melting down, and i know that wasn't popular. it wasn't popular with me. but here's what the recovery act did, we cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of working families to promote spending and hiring -- cut taxes. that's what the recovery act did, was cutting people's taxes across america. we're also making investments in our infrastructure, from interstate highways to broadband networks. that not only creates private

sector jobs, but is also creates the platform, a better environment, in which business can prosper. it's also what we did through the jobs bill that i signed into law just recently, a bill that cuts taxes for small businesses who hire unemployed workers, and that allows companies to write off investments in equipment, like some of the equipment that we just saw here today, and that encourages job creation by spurring investments in school renovation and clean energy projects and road construction -- all of which builds on the investments that we've put into place last year through the recovery act. so as a consequence of all these investments, we've 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. see, i want to improve the short-term jobs picture, but i also want to improve the long- term prospects for our economy. and in no area is america more primed to lead them than in clean energy. and i don't have to tell the folks here at celgard about that, because through the

recovery act, this company has received a $50 million matching grant to expand the facility on this site, and to add another facility in concord, north carolina. and i also know this builds on the work that governor perdue did to bring clean energy jobs to this state. so here's the bottom line, this investment is expected to create nearly 300 jobs for this company, more than a thousand jobs for your contractors and suppliers -- and these are all jobs helping america build the batteries that will power cleaner and more efficient cars and trucks. and through investments like this one across the country, we're already seeing an incredible transformation. here's an interesting statistic, before the recovery act, before i took office, we had the capacity to make less than 2 percent of the world's lithium ion batteries -- less than 2 percent.

in the next five years, on the trajectory that we're now on, we're going to be able to make 40 percent of the advanced batteries right here in the united states of america. right here. so the next time somebody asks you, when you're at the grocery store, well, what did this recovery act do? you can tell them, one of the things it helped do is to expand and catalyze an entire new industry, where the united states of america can gain enormous market share across the globe. and that's the kind of strategy we need -- helping the private sector thrive in entirely new industries, the industries of the future. it's a strategy that will not only create jobs in the near term, but also sustained growth and opportunity in the long run. now, this has been a harrowing

time for our country. and it's easy to grow cynical and wonder if america's best days are behind us, especially after such a terrible crisis. and we've seen folks in washington trying to play the usual politics with the crisis. and that's not surprising, of course. that's how washington works. although i do think it's important for the american people to remember the failed economic policies that got us into this mess, just so we make sure we don't return to them. but what we can see here, at this plant, is that the worst of the storm is over, that brighter days are still ahead. in charlotte and all across the country, we can see the promise and possibility that awaits us. if we tap our ingenuity and our inventiveness, our skill and our drive as a people, if we're smart, if we're willing to do what it takes, we can lead in new industries and create new jobs and strengthen the middle class and achieve a shared and lasting prosperity.

and we can turn this turmoil into recovery and emerge stronger than before. i'm convinced that's what we're called to do, i'm confident that that is what we will do. and i want to say to all the employees here at celgard, we are proud of you because you're helping to point the way and helping to lead not just here in north carolina but all across the country. so thank you very much, everybody. let me take some questions from you. thank you. thank you. thank you. so, you know, when they let me out of my cage at the white house i like to actually have a chance to talk to folks. and so we've got time for a few questions and we've got some young people here in the audience with their microphones. this is not formal, even though i'm sure with some of the cameras a few of you may feel it's a little intimidating. all you got to do is raise your

hand. we'll call on you. and it can be a question about anything. if you can introduce yourself, though, that's helpful, so everybody knows who's speaking. and we'll start with that young lady right there since you're right next to the mic. >> hi, my name is jennifer dakin. i'm here from charlotte. i'm part of the polypore parent company. my question is regarding the sarbanes-oxley act. and many people have commented on the fact that it has come at a great cost to many public organizations, the fact that we need to assess and report on our internal controls of our financial reporting. it's also come, many say, without value in the recent financial crisis. what value do you think it may have going forward on the upswing as the economy goes forward? >> well, it's a great question. for those of you who aren't aware of it, sarbanes-oxley was instituted not in response to this financial crisis, but in

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

investors, shareholders, the market, customers, suppliers, and employees, a lot of whom had gotten tricked into putting all their savings into a company like enron and then it turned out that everything they thought they had been saving just went up in a cloud of smoke -- that all those folks would be protected. so the intent around sarbanes- oxley was a good idea. it was the right thing to do. there have been, i think, some legitimate criticisms about the fact that although sarbanes- oxley is a relatively modest cost for a very big company, it can be a very significant cost for a mid-sized or a small company. because if they have to abide by all the rules and all the regulations and all the double- checking and triple-checking and quadruple-checking, and so they've got to hire a whole bunch of accountants, it's one thing if you're a fortune 100

company that's got several billion dollars in revenue to spend a couple million dollars on accountants. it's another thing if you are a company that is making $100 million a year and you're spending a couple million dollars on accountants. that's suddenly -- that could be the difference in terms of your profit margin. so what we're interested in doing is to work with companies to get advice, are there ways that we can streamline and make this more effective? are there ways that we can lessen the burden on small and medium-sized companies, but still retain the basic principle that accounting standards have to be met, and they have to be cleared, they have to be understandable -- you can't cook the books -- and that ceos and boards of directors have to be accountable for the accounting statements that they put out there? and they've got to sign a

bottom line. and they're going to be directly liable if, for some reason, it turns out that there were some shenanigans going on there. so this raises a broader question about regulation. we went through a period of time where i think the general theory was the less regulation, the better. and if you talk to most companies, they'd rather not have any regulations whatsoever. there's nothing wrong with that. that's just the nature of it. you figure companies think they're pretty smart, they know what they're doing. and i'm sure if i talk to bob, he'd say, there are a whole bunch of things that i've got to do that i wish i didn't have to do. but it's like any other law. you put the laws in place, even though you know most folks are following the rules and operating decently and

commonsense, to make sure that those folks who aren't operating that way can't wreak havoc on the system. and so we're going to be having a big debate when it comes to financial regulatory reform. you're 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 one dollar and they were able to leverage, essentially bet that -- use that dollar to make a $60 bet on sub-prime loans in housing and take huge, exorbitant risks that almost brought the entire system to heel. and all your friends and neighbors and communities are paying the price, because nobody was minding the store and making sure that these banks and these financial institutions

were following basic rules of the road. so what we've now said is, look, we've got to have a financial system that works. that's how credit flows. that's how businesses finance themselves. but we've got to have some basic rules to make sure that we never find ourselves in a situation again where we've got two choices -- either you bail out the banks, in which case you're thinking, why am i propping up these folks who caused the problems in the first place, or you don't but then these banks start failing and the whole system breaks down, creating what could have been a great depression. we can't allow ourselves to be put in that position again. so we've got to have some basic rules, some basic regulations, at the front end that say to banks, we're not going to let you get too big to fail. we're not going to put ourselves in a position where somehow you're able to gamble with other people's money in such a way that it can

potentially bring down the whole system. getting the balance right, how to do that, is something that you've got to be very careful about. but i think now that we've got -- we're starting to see a framework emerge both in the house of representatives and in the senate, where my hope is, is that we can actually get this sometime in the next several weeks. thank you for the great question. this gentleman right here. >> thank you, sir. my name is michael shore. i'm here in charlotte. first, it's an honor to have you here with us today. >> thank you very much. >> i'm concerned that your decision to allow offshore drilling could have the effect of chilling investment into alternate sources of energy. and i'm interested in what incentives you're going to be proposing to establish the conditions and to stimulate research and development and expansion of that critical sector. >> well, i think that's a great question. look, first of all, understand that the recovery act, what we passed last year, represented

the single largest investment in clean energy in history, by far. so we invested in wind, we invested in solar, we invested in biomass. we invested in research and development, we invested in commercialization. we invested in battery technologies. we are interested in figuring out how we can improve efficiency across the system, both in buildings and in transportation sectors and -- you name it, we're all about increasing energy efficiency and finding new renewable, clean sources of energy. it's one of my highest priorities, and i think it's got to be one of our highest strategic priorities as an economy. it has the potential of being an enormous growth industry. here's the challenge that we have. we don't yet have the technological breakthroughs that can completely replace fossil fuels.

so for the next 10 years, next 20 years, we're still going to be using oil, we're still going to be using coal, we're still going to be using natural gas -- we're still going to be using the traditional sources to fuel our cars, to heat our homes, to run our big power plants, et cetera. it's my hope that if we're aggressive over the next several years, we can substantially cut our energy use in every sector while still maintaining our high levels of economic growth. so, for example, at the announcement where i talked about offshore drilling, i did so in front of an f-18, a fighter jet, that is actually going to be run half on biomass. so i was joking with the pilot -- i said, so this thing runs on vegetable oil.

but they're going to break the sound barrier using biomass as fuel. so the pentagon is investing huge amounts in energy efficiency. we are promoting weatherization across the country because this is a win-win situation, you put people to work putting in insulation, putting in windows -- most of which, by the way, that insulation and windows is manufactured here in the united states -- it saves on the individual's energy bill, plus it means that that power plant has to produce less energy to keep that home warm. so it's a win-win all across the board. that's our biggest priority --

energy efficiency and renewable, clean energy. but because we're going to have this transition -- unless somebody here invents something tomorrow, which would be very helpful, and if you have it let me know, we'll get it going right away -- but what's most likely is we're going to have this transition. and so in the interim we've got to look at our traditional energy sources and figure out how can we use those most effectively and in the most environmentally sound way. that's 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 nuclear -- civilian nuclear energy. we essentially stopped 30 years ago. for those of you who are concerned about climate change, nuclear energy doesn't produce

greenhouse gases. it's not a perfect energy source because it's got the problem with spent fuel and how that is properly stored, but generally speaking, that's going to have to be part of our energy mix. the decision around drilling -- same approach. what we did was we said we're not going to have drilling a mile off 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's certain reserves. there are some areas that we just completely put off limits, like bristol bay in alaska where it's a huge fishery, environmentally very sensitive. there are some areas off the coast in the gulf of mexico which don't make sense for us to allow exploration, even though we know that there are

existing reserves there. but what we did was we tried to look at the scientific evidence and figure out where are areas where low risk environmentally and a high potential upside. now, here's the last thing i'll say about drilling, though, because what you have is, you have some environmentalists who just said, don't drill anywhere, and then you've got some of my friends on the republican side who were saying, well, this is a nice first step but it's not enough -- you should open up everything. i don't agree with the notion that we shouldn't do anything. it turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. they are technologically very advanced. even during katrina, the spills didn't come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore. but the notion that we could drill our way out of the problem -- you'll start hearing

about this because you know what happens during the summer. as soon as gas prices start going up -- every summer it's the same thing, right? and then politicians start standing up and -- "we're going to do something about it" -- and these days some of my colleagues on the republican side, what they'll say is, you got to drill even more. just remember the statistics when you start hearing this. we account for 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but we use 20 percent of the world's oil. we use 20 percent, we only got 2 percent. we can't drill our way out of the problem. that's why we've got to get moving on this clean energy sector, but we also have to make sure that we've got enough supply that's regular in terms of these other energy -- traditional energy, sources, so that by the time we get to the clean energy sector, we haven't had to sacrifice economic growth along the way. all right? all right. the gentleman right here, white

shirt. >> james hill from greenwood, south carolina. i work in the (inaudible) lab and i agree it's an honor for you to be here today. thank you. my question is, how long do you think -- the kind of springboard from which you were just saying, how long do you think it would take for us to have more hybrid vehicles on the road than gas vehicles, and what would it take? >> well, we have already seen a huge spike in the purchase of hybrid vehicles. i mean, if you think about it, just two years ago if you found out somebody had a hybrid vehicle, that was a pretty big deal and you wanted to go over and test it out and see how it worked. now, it's pretty common. i mean, everybody here knows somebody who's got a hybrid, and you've probably tried it out and it's kind of cool when you're backing up and it's all quiet. so i think that that's the future. and consumers are naturally going to start gravitating in

that direction. because here's the fact -- we were just talking about oil -- not only do we produce only 2 percent and use 20 percent, but countries around the world, everybody is starting to use more oil. think about it. china, if they get even half of the number of cars per capita, per population, that we have right now -- there are a lot of folks in china. and there are a lot of folks in india. and their standards of living are all starting to rise and they're all starting to be interested in buying cars. and the fact of the matter is, is that if they even approach the amount of car ownership that we have, oil will run out very quickly and on the way, prices will just spike up naturally, no matter what we do. so it is a huge need for us to increase our fuel efficiency on

cars now. and that's why one of the things that i did last year -- it's actually taking effect this week -- is to raise a national fuel efficiency standard, first time we've done it in a very long time. but, frankly, even with us raising those standards, i think consumers just in terms of their pocketbook interests are going to be even more interested in buying hybrids and electric cars. two things that we can do that would make a big difference right now, number one, we've got to make sure that those cars are made here in the united states of america. and so part of the reason why it's so important for us to develop the battery technology here is if we're developing battery technology that helps us leverage more auto production here in the united states. and that has, just in the same way that when bob was talking about what's happening here at celgard, the grant we gave creates 300 jobs in the

company, but potentially a thousand jobs in suppliers, the same is true with the auto industry. some of you might have said, why are we helping out gm? well, let me tell you, gm might have employed -- along with its dealers and everybody -- a hundred thousand, several hundred thousand. but when you looked at all the suppliers involved and the economies, you could have seen another couple million jobs lost. that would have had huge implications for the economy. now, gm is actually making a profit and starting to buy -- or starting to hire people back. but one thing we need to do is make sure that those cars are made here in the united states. the second thing we need to do

is to create the electricity grid, what we're calling the smart grid, which is -- think about it, part of the reason that we can drive our cars is because there's a gas station every so often. there are roads. there are gas stations. we know how to fuel up our automobiles. now, if we want to have everybody getting maximum use out of an electric car or a hybrid car, part of what we have to do is to create a similar distribution mechanism for electricity. and one of the exciting things about these hybrids is we want to get to the point where you've got what's called a plug-in hybrid, where you essentially have a gas station at your house -- called your electric socket. and you're going to be able to plug in your car at night. some of the energy that was stored in the car can actually go back into the house, and then when you're ready to go, you can get that energy and use it