clothing, t-shirts, consumer electronics. we are good at selling these large-scale infrastructure projects that they're going to really be driving this economy for the next couple of decades. >> the question, we've got a question right here. if you'll identify yourself please. >> george zornak with "the nation" magazine. i'm sure you're aware many house republicans and hard right groups are smalling they don't want to raise the loan limit for your organization. can you talk about that and talk about what some of the implications of that would be? >> sure. just to back up, most agencies are in sunset. our agencies sunset september 30th, it gets renewed for a four or five-year period periodically by congress. now we are -- our authorization expires the end of may. >> end of may this year? >> may this year, 78 days, not

that i'm counting. >> i didn't know that. i didn't really ask, what if they didn't exist and you didn't have a job, i didn't realize that might happen. >> hopefully not. currently -- congress sets a number of things, terms and conditions, how we operate. one of the things they set is what's the amount of indebtedness over time? current ceiling is $100 billion. we're hovering at $90 billion. we get about $1 billion. we pay every month, we make loans $2 billion or $3 billion a month. we will quickly run out of head room frankly if we don't get that increased. it's more likely we'll actually run out of head room before we run out of time at this point. so if we don't do it, to your question, if we don't do it, it does open a door for our foreign competitors. we're sitting in washington wringing our hands wondering should it be 100, 110, 140, 160? the house financial shfss committee actually voted 160.

more than we asked for. and our competitors are simply licking their chops andeat,e'll come, in steal those sales, and there won't be xm bank to support those u.s. exporters. while we're worrying what the numbers should be, our competitors are very happy watching us in this turmoil. >> great. yes, sir? jean-francois? >> yes, french treasury. i was running the cofax program, your competitor in france, so i made sure international french companies could get the best product at the best price. that's the reason for my question. there are lots of complaints in europe by comes across the continent about action port credit competition coming from china. we, the u.s., germany, france,

uk, we are all part of the ose export consensus so we play by the same rules. it's not the case for china which is not a member. what do you do about that or what do you wish to do about that? >> interesting. china. >> i think this is one of the largest threats to our export agenda and a large threat to the united states, because there is a lot of state-sponsored capitalism that's opaque, it's not transparent, it doesn't play by the rules. china is certainly one but they're not alone. brazil, india to a lesser extent. i'll give you one stat that currently brazil, india and china provide greater support for their exporters than all the g-7 countries combined. those three countries. brazil, india, china. most of it is brazil and china. what we're trying to do to rebut that is a couple of things. one, when vice president xi was here there was agreement made to

bring china into some kind of international frame work by 2014. we've already had teams of people in china to start working on this in a specific way in terms of exchange of information, more transparency, what could be that international framework? but in the meantime, we've made a decision at xm bank, working with the administration, we have a transaction in pakistan where we got information on the chinese financing offer. we looked at the offer. we were able to offset it and we're matching the offer. still at no cost to the taxpayer. still without a subsidy. we were able to reduce the fee we charged, the points essentially, like points on a mortgage. extend the term as the chinese had done so that we were able t. pakistan is still deliberating emd li re looking at chinese locomotives but the financing terps are the same. we're not going to sit back and

wait for this to happen. in the meantime, we will find every way to offset that if we can. >> let me just pose one last question before we close out and go for i think all of you for well-deserved drinks. if those of you who are interested, i wrote a piece for "the atlantic." you can google my name and the bricks and find this interesting paper. there was an ocd paper that was produced and i can't remember the gentleman's name who wrote it but it was on the future of the middle class and looking at development. but there was a fascinating, sobering chart that looked at various stages, middle-class development, and what those shares of the global middle class would be really by region, india and china were broken out, u.s. was broken out, europe, et cetera. and what you saw in that chart was over time, how very large globs of the european share of the global middle class and the american share of the middle

class, whittled down to very small, tiny bits by 2050. and the middle class represented by india and china, very substantial. that in latin america and africa remained minor and relatively insignificant. and what you just said about all of those coming into the middle class represent really great opportunities. but it also says something else. is that the u.s. economy in that world probably isn't likely to be the one that makes the weather. that creates the gravitational forces around economic trends. and while it may be good for exporters in a certain way, i would like to talk to fred hawkburg, the smart thinker, not fred hawkburg of xm bank. what kind of world is that in which the american middle classes become so small in comparison to the demand everywhere else? how do you in that world envision the u.s. maintaining

some leverage in the system? >> well, it's probably a world that has just less income disparity in some degree. there may still be very much at the high end but more people in the middle, not just the united states but elsewhere. one thing about the middle class, they become stakeholders in the society.rs, e less likely we're going, to as we just talked b. have 200,000 troops stationed at different places around the world because more people have a stake in what their country's like, stake in the political environment, stake in the economy. that makes for greater stability. >> but they get greater stability, but if you've got an achievement of such a large portion of middle class, as you just said, those countries weren't playing by the fundamental ruleth that the rest of the club is paid by. do you suppose that the rules basically change, that those that have been abiding by a kind of rules-based system are

undermined and there are new rules-setters? >> i think the rules have to change. i don't think this will continue forever where we've got the second-largest economy in the world, the largest exporting in the world deciding to go rogue and not play by the rules. that's not tenable. it's also not tenable, and i've been in china, it's not tenable we're going to have a $250 billion trade deficit, the next year 275, the i don't have after -- i've said this, you don't believe it will keep growing each year and no one's going to say anything and it will never stop. no. i don't know exactly the form of that. having some agreement on export credits is a start. but it's only a start because a lot of times in china, they will go into an african country and not only will they -- even if they begin to have the terms of the export loan at par, if we get there, there's a lot of other stuff that they get paid in kind, they get bind in iron ore at low market. there are a lot of other factors

going in. so we're pushing for greater transparency so that we don't have this unequilibrium. i agree with larry on a lot of the thins. we still have a great workforce. you know. i walk through factory floor to factory floor. in the united states today, i'll give you one example, siemens just built a new facility, power turbines in charlotte, north carolina. they construct -- they manufacture them in charlotte, shanghai and berlin. the charlotte plant's the most efficient plant. now, we pay more in the united states than shanghai already but there's greater automation. you know. there's many ways we're still very competitive. they did not have to add 400,000 square feet in charlotte, they could have done it in china, they could have done it in brazil. they didn't. they did it here. >> let me just ask one last question. michael behind, who i think was here, i wrote a new york types piece awhile back saying our message to the world given our immigration policy was give us

your brawn, not your brains. secret of the success for the united states has been the brain drain for the rest of the world. they went back, took part of the dna, if not they were innovative. yooure a u.s. government official but take that hat off. do you think our immigration policies need to be rethought given the fact that we do bring in so many smart, talented peop, them, then kick them into other countries that are picking the champions these folks are y wh we're doing. people ask me, the name of your. i said, we import entrepreneurs. we like them to start a business here then export their products. we all know this policy does not make sense. it does not make sense to train people. this is the best place to get education in the world. we may have challenges with our education system. there's no better place for

higher education anyplace in the world. and we can't keep exporting, letting that talent leave the country and so willingly. they like to come here. no one is emigrating into china. great quality of life, i'm moving to china. they're moving out of china. people move to the united states. we've got to make sure to accommodate that, we just have a lot of politics. we know that's the right answer, we just have the policy in this the way. a lot of things happened last year, the debt creeling -- we know the right answer, it's just getting there. >> before everybody gets up i want to say a few things closing. this has been a very long day. i'm grateful to all of you. staff tells me we've had more than 850 people cycle through here during the day. and because of, that i really owe an incredible debt of gratitude to "the atlantic" team and tlarl melody thomas, diana

ryan, eli intra murphy, eli intra french. bloomberg, cnbc, c-span staff. we thank the viewers and the teams who have done it and the folks at the hilton. in particular i want to thank our underwriters, td bank, the certified financial planner board of standards, and the center for audit quality for their support of this program. i want to make one special, really important -- this conference started as the idea of richard vague. we were drinking somewhere. richard is a friend. i put the -- he has a private foundation, governor woods foundation. they're not trying to sell anything. they don't even want that out there. richard and i thought about this and i just can't thank him enough for helping to get the quality of speakers and committing this. i tell you, in washington, d.c., really anywhere in the country, it's hard to find an economic forum that isn't a stacked deck forum. we worked very hard. you should see the hate mail that i got in my box given -- i

think i got hate mail every speaker we had. so that meant it was a great success that we were able to bring together someone in every corner who offended some other corner. but today, if you look at the composite of what we did, we had an incredibly cordial, thoughtful, 360-degree discussion of the u.s. economy in directions that i hadn't fully expect wrerd had the micro types, micro types, labor types, people looking at technology and innovation, deficit hawks, those that love the fed and xm bank, those that want to see them put to rest quickly. on that i want to you for joining us. we're going to join in the congressional room. we're buying the drinks. want if you want to come in and have a drink, we'd love to have you. thank you all very much.

you can see part of this day-long "atlantic" summit on c-span2 tonight, including walks from paul volcker, lauren lindsay, starting 8:50 eastern or any time at c-span.org. . >> if there's anything that

concerns the american family today, it's this. our government hasn't caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? new facts. moms working. there will be 65% of all mothers working. part-time, full-time, all of the time. keeping the family together. making ends meet. making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care. and the pay they deserve. so often, they can't get either. >> this saturday, maryland's senator barbara mikulski will become the largest serving female member in congressional history. she'll surpass the record held by massachusetts republican representative edith rogers who served from 1925 to 1960. watch senator mikulski's speeches from the senate floor and other appearances all

archived and searchable online at the c-span video library. in about 15 minutes, coverage of tonight's state dinner for british prime minister david cameron. we'll show you guest arrivals, including president obama's greeting at the white house and toasts from both leaders. you can see our state dinner coverage live getting under way shortly on c-span. also tonight, remarks from time warner chairman and ceo jeffrey bewkes on how digital media is changing the way americans live. he's speaking at the economic club of washington live at 7:55 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2. and tomorrow, the senate environment committee holds a hearing on nuclear reactor safety in the 21st century. after last year's nuclear disaster in fukushima japan, witnesses testify on lessons learned and what can be done to prevent another disaster. you can see that live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

in about ten minutes we'll show you remarks from national economic council director gene sperling. he spoke earlier today at the economic summit hosted by "the atlantic." first, opening remarks from this event with james bennett who serves as editor in chief of "the atlantic" and richard vague of the governors woods foundation. this runs about ten minutes. >> thank you very much. on behalf of steve clemmons and "the atlantic," i want to thank all of you for your participation in this extraordinary conference. it's frankly a privilege to be here. in this conference we have specifically tried to include voices from across the spectrum. in some respects you might say that is the purpose of this conference them the very

straightforward question, what should we do now? through the day, we're hoping to hear different ideas and hopefully some provocative proposals. for my part, i would ask a few questions to keep in mind. has the u.s. private sector already started to relever, taking impes does away from the need for more stimulus? shouldn't we be making more differentiation anyway between fiscal stimulus that is productive and that which is unproductive? have we properly framed the population question? the most important phenomenon of the last couple of centuries has been the unprecedented population growth. in many respects the world is built in expectation of high population growth. our defined benefits programs, our social security programs and

the like. yet population is decelerating, making market changes in thousands of things. lastly, in any discussion of job creation, shouldn't we be focusing more on innovation than monetary, fiscal, and trade policy? won't than owe technology, genetics, robotics and the cures for major diseases have far more to do with job creation in the future than these types of policies?diseases have far more with job creation in the future than these types of policies? in any of that here's hoping for a great exchange of ideas. now it is my distinct privilege to introduce james bennett. since 2006, james, who is a graduate of yale, has been editor in chief of "the atlantic." prior to that, he was the jerusalem bureau chief for the "new york times" where his coverage was widely acclaimed for its balance and sensitivity. before jerusalem, he was "the

times" white house correspondent and he was preparing to go to the beijing bureau when he was snatched away by "the atlantic" to be its editor. please join me in welcoming to the podium a true i'der and visionary, james bennett. >> thank you very much, richard. i'd like to tell you a quick story about "the atlantic" to explain why the conversation we're going to all have together today means so much to us. "the atlantic" as you may know was founded a very long time ago, in the 1850s, to advance big ideas in the culture and the society, and particularly to try to promote the abolition of slavery. but when the magazine actually launched in november of 1857, the country was very preoccupied with a different issue which was the economic crash of that year. and so the big public policy

offering in the first issue of "the atlantic" that november was not about slavery, it was about the state of the economy. and our writer surveyed the landscape and he identified four different diagnoses of what had gone wrong. if you'll bear with me, the prose is very much of that era, but the critique itself i think will sound somewhat familiar. he identified four different viewpoints. personified them. one, he said one critic cries that we americans are an unconsciousbly greedy people, ever hastening to get rich, never satisfied with our gains. in the frannic disregarding justice, truth, probity, and moderation. a second qualifies this view and shouts that our vice is not so much greed, which is the vice of the miser, as extravagance, which is the vice of the spend

thrift. and that as soon as we get one dollar, we run in debt for ten. we must have fine houses, fine horses, fine millerry. our dwellings must be more royally arrayed than the finest monarchs. when the time comes, as come it will for paying, we collapse, we wither, we fleet, we sink into the sand. a third voice, he says, complains that the problem is actually the absence of a protectionist trade policy. there's no high tariff. and a fourth says that the problem is the very existence of a credit system which is by its very nature inflationary. our require writer went on to say all of these views have some merit but that the real problem was the ease with which our currency was inflated then by the american banking system which he said varies from state to state in which outside of new england and new york where it is by no means perfect is as

baungling a contrivance as was ever inflicted on the patience of mankind. it would actually be another 50 years, more than 50 years, i think 1913, before the federal reserve was created to deal with at least some of the problems that he identified in that first story. which actually brings us to the issue of the -- the new issue of "the atlantic" which appears today. our cover piece is on ben bernanke's effort to use the federal reserve to address the economic crisis we find ourselves in. it is a wonderful piece by roger loewen stein, on the cover he's the hero, inside he's the villain, because as loewen stein explains he's managed to enrage both the right and left, which roger argues as series of daring and ultimately fairly effective efforts to get things moving again. i'm hoping that there will be some disagreement as well as some agreement with our

conclusions over the course of today. this issue is out today. there's some other wonderful stuff in it if i may say, including a nice piece on how our spending habits have changed over the last few years. a terrific piece by the political philosopher michael sand dell about how market logic has seeped into our consciousness. for those looking for something more fun, a terrific profile by mark bowden of the man who broke atlantic city. a gambler who successfully took three different casinos for $15 million and how he did it. at the same time, our special money report on our website goes live later this afternoon. now it falls to me to bring steve clemmons up here. i generally feel silly introducing steve clemmons because it already turns out that everybody always knows him. if you do know him is a man who believes deeply in servicing the

next provocative idea, hearing from as many points of view as possible, which makes him a perfect fit for "the atlantic," he's the editor in chief of our lives division, the guy who brought us all together today. so stove. >> thank you, james. i want to say that we are being covered today by cnbc, bloomberg, we're live all day on c-span. and we have many blogs that are streaming this live as well. so we've got a big community outside this room. we're going to be putting -- so those of you, tweet, if you like something, tweet it. if you hate something, tweet it. i think the notion, we had a dinner last night preceding this. and one of my friends who was there, david corn, msnbc commentator and kind of a good, bluff, progressive radical writer, and i'm sure david would like that depiction, texted me after he left the dinner.

he said, steve, fantastic sort of cerebral intellectual discussion, really varied, but boy does that differ from the politics out on the street. and i said, that's exactly what we want to try and achieve today. we want to demonstrate that you cannot only bring together people who have very different views on what's wrong with the economy and how -- what their prescription is to fix it, but that we can do so in a way that raises and uplifts the discussion and doesn't tear it down. and so the notion of being both provocative yet constructive i think is important today. >> more from "the atlantic" summit with remarks from national economic council director gene sperling. he spoke earlier today about the u.s. economic recovery and how gas prices could impact future growth. mr. sperling interviewed by james bennett, editor in chief of "the atlantic." this is 35 minutes.

>> gene, as many of you know, has been at the center of democratic policy-making and politics for more than 20 years now. and served in the same capacity in the second term of the clinton white house. if memory serves was the key negotiator on the bipartisan balanced budget deal of '97. i think that cheryl sandberg of treasury, formerly of treasury, now of facebook -- >> she's kind of doing okay. >> once said of you, she said, i've seen heads of state cower before this man. so maybe you could tell us a couple of those stories. and "the washington post" recently referred to you as obama's jobs creator. which is actually a pretty mighty responsibility. so i thought we might as well start there. there have been signs lately of

what seems like a slow and steady recoveriry think that's been the consensus view on this stage today overall. yet we remain in a very deep jobs hole. consumer debt remains very high. where do you think -- what's a realistic range for the unemployment rate in, say, six, seven months from now? >> it's an absolutely great idea for people in government jobs like mine to make projections of where the unemployment rate will be. it always works out well. and there are never unexpected headwinds or unintended consequences that get in the way so it's a great idea. but i'll probably take a pass. so here's what i'd say. i think people here know the basic story. which is, basically, this is a story about climbing out of a very, very deep hole. and again, as this audience would know, when you are doing

that in perhaps certain types of recoveries where there's been defined by perhaps higher interest rates, higher inflation, creating pent-up demand for houses and cars like we saw in '83, '84, a recovery can be robust. morning in america in 1984, basically people deciding to buy cars and houses again. when you face this type -- coming back from this type of a recession, a financial meltdown, a bubble, people are still deleveraging. and that's frustrating because you can't get quite the rip-roaring bounce that you would like when you are inheriting such a deep hole. unemployment that's been -- that was bordering on 10%. that said, you know, i think we've come a long way under the circumstance. i think in terms of jobs, we have made significant progress. we just have a long way