the disciplines that exist th e there. so i guess i'm -- you know, this is an issue where as you look at the economics of it, at least, certainly looks like it's sort of a one-way street in terms of the benefit to u.s. producers and exporters. but i want to just ask a question and i guess maybe of mr. allen, it is hard to ignore the fact that american companies have very little market penetration in russia. in fact, right now u.s. products account for about 4% of russia's total import market while the eu accounts for about 43%. and i guess my question is, why is this the case? and then perhaps a follow-up to that. if the united states does not grant russia pntr status, do you expect this disparity to grow even larger than it is today? >> from our standpoint, maybe to frame it, we do about $800 million of business in russia

this last year, 70% of that was product that came out of the midwest. so that's kind of the opportunity. because of what the chairman talked about in terms of russian ag potential, we think our market's going to grow by four to five times. and it hasn't grown up to this point in time because the whole country is starting to develop and move away from the russian-based equipment that is very low productivity type equipment to being high-productive farms. but that transition is now going on. to answer the second part of your question, our number one competitor over there is another western company out of germany. germany's given half the benefits of wto with russia. so if we don't pass it, what's going to happen is they immediately have a major benefit from a cost standpoint to us and instead of seeing our business grow four or five times, we'll see our business shrink.

>> senator, i think one of the reasons why we're still small over there is because historic and geographic issues pretty far away. germany is much closer, france is much closer, much more competitive as well. i think one of the things the countries do is a very much focused on exports. bring out their principals, sell their products, that's something the u.s. could do more. help our governments help sell more. and i think the improvement of u.s./russia relations has helped improve the business case and it's going to help us going forward. we might say the relationship is not improved, but i think it has improved pretty much over the last several years from what it used to be. and that's helped u.s. business, helped open doors. >> if we don't grant russia pntr status, the second question is, do you see the disparity that exists today between -- you've described what i think are some of the geographic advantages built in for europe. but does that disparity in terms of penetration and that market grow? >> we'll be looked at basically

giving them an economic slap and they can throw their government orders to other countries that would cooperate more on an economic front with them. we'd have a negative reaction. >> i want to just follow up with the senator from montana would like to export more montana beef. we would like to export more south dakota beef. >> little of both. >> little of both. it's a big pie. we need to grow the pie. but in your testimony, to say this to mr. taylor, you did talk about the importance of beef producers and of russia's wto commitments on a sanitary standards. which of these commitments do you believe are most important to ensure market access for u.s. beef and how important is it for beef producers to have access to the wto dispute settlement procedures to ensure that russia's commitments are enforced? >> senator, i -- i think all of

these are important. separate from the fact that as you go down the road, some of them always become protectionism. but i think trying to bring russia in line with scientific data and international standards is what we seek from all our trading partners. and that's what levels the playing field for all of us. but we most definitely have a product that ten years ago wasn't going into russia. today we're over 45,000 metric tons. and that's more than what we're

sending to the eu. so it's definitely an expanding market. from our standpoint, the profit that's coming to our business is from our export markets. whether it be russia or korea or whatever. and that has substantially helped us. and we need it to keep up with the cost of doing business. i don't think -- i know from my standpoint, i'm not making any more money today than i was five years ago, maybe less because it costs mre to do business than what we've been getting. >> i see the time expired, mr. chairman. i do think there's tremendous upside from american agricult e agriculture. and if we're commodity

prices that helped agriculture prosper in the last few years, we've got to continue to look for ways to open up more markets around the world. 96% of the world' population as we know lives outside the united states. i think there's tremendous upside and you look at what we're doing in russia today relative to what we might be able to do and it's certainly -- it looks like a target-rich environment. >> senator, in your state involved in this in the export of live cattle in russia, it's been brought to my attention that the population of russia in 1917 was 18 million. that's rou 1 5 of what we have in the united states, tod we will probably ship somewhere close to 50,000 to russia in the next year. we have a long ways to go.

to get russia up to the standards they need to be.on wo going to have to be on the same land that we have today. so i think it's pretty crucial and critical to all of us to move russia forward. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. and thank you, all witnesses, you're all very helpful. >> deeply appreciate your time coming to talk to us. thank you very much. committee's adjourned.

in a few moments on c-span there, treasury secretary timothy geithner. and former national security advise advise advisers brzezinski. >> on the theme the constitution and you as middle and high school students from across the country showed which part of the constitution was important to them and why. we'll air the top 27 videos, mornings at 6:50 eastern on c-span. and meet the students who created them on washington journal each day. for a preview check

studentcam.org and congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's competition. in march of 1979, c-span began televising to households nationwide, and today our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> we're talking now about the supreme court. but they are the ones that changed this country inevitably with what we call the march toward progress. the march towards knocking down the walls of discrimination. that permitted us to pass a 1964 civil right act and public accommodations. so people whose skin was not white could go into restaurants and go into hotels, public accommodation, the '65 act, voting, voting rights, '68 act, the public accommodation, the 1973 act that says women are going to be treated equally, the americans of disability act that said the disabled are going to

be part of the american family. all that is the march to progress. and my friends, the one organization, the one institution that protects it is the supreme court of the united states! >> c-span, credited by america's cable companies as a public service. the supreme court this week is hearing a constitutional challenge to the president's health care law. the court is releasing audio of the oral argument each day. and as soon as we get the audio, we're bringing it to you here on c-span 3. also on c-span.org and c-span radio. that's at about 1:00 p.m. eastern tuesday and wednesday. >> treasury secretary tim geithner says the u.s. economy is improving. but in remarks earlier this month at the economic club of new york, he said the housing market and oil prices still pose a danger to the economy.

secretary geithner was introduced by the chairman of the economic club andrew tisch. >> good evening. i want to welcome you to the 419th meeting of the economic club of new york now in the 105th year. the economic club of new york is the nation's leading non-partisan forum for economic policy. more than 1,000 speakers have appeared before this club in more than a century. establishing a strong tradition of excellence and importance. this tradition has been supported by the contributions from 158 members of the club's centennial society. their names are listed in the program and i thank you. tonight, we are pleased to welcome back to the club treasury secretary timothy geithner.

secretary geithner last spoke to the club in june of 2008 when he was the club trustee and more importantly he was president of federal reserve bank of new york. secretary geithner was sworn in as the 75th secretary of the united states treasury on june 26th, 2009. he previously had served in the treasury department under three administrations. before coming to the federal reserve, he was at the imf. earlier in his career, he worked for kissinger associates. secretary geithner graduated from dartmouth college and from the johns hopkins school advance of national studies. we're pleased to have secretary geithner deliver his remarks, which we've followed by a question and answer period with two designated club members. please welcome secretary timothy geithner.

>> thank you, andrew. good evening, it's a pleasure to be back here at the new york economic club, this great forum for national debate about economic policy and to be here at a time when we make some fundamental important choices about politics and economics. it's nice to see so many former colleagues here. i can see some of you. and i want to pay tribute to my former colleagues at the new york fed who are here. i know some of them are here. they are as i hope you know an exceptionally talented group of public servants. brave and creative in crisis and it was my great privilege to work with them. as you know, i left new york for washington in november 2008 at a particularly dark moment. my timing was not good. the u.s. economy was contracting at an annual rate of 9%, growth

around the world was collapsing. the actions taken by treasury secretary hank paulson, the federal reserve, the fdic authorized by the congress earlier that fall were essential to stemming the worst of the financial panic, but the economy was deteriorating at an alarming pace. you'll remember that our banks and financial markets were still in a state of shock. sucking more oxygen out of the economy, helping push the u.s. and the world into the worst crisis since the great depression. businesses were failing at an alarming rate. those able to survive were laying off hundreds of thousands of workers each month, house prices were falling rapidly, and remember, in early 2009, they were projected to fall another 30%. so with the president prepared to take office in january of 2009, it was clear that the situation was very grave.

and the president understood that additional actions were urgently needed. he did not sit around hoping that crisis would burn itself out. he was not paralyzed by the complexity of the choices for the terrible politics of the potential solutions. he decided to act early and forcefully, and his strategy to stabilize the financial system combined with $800 billion of tax cuts in emergency spending in the recovery act. the restructuring of the u.s. automobile industry, the actions of the federal reserve, and the coordinated global rescue he led in the g-20 were very effective in restoring economic growth. now, you may recall from the political storms of those early months in 2009 tt how should i put it? people were not fully confident then that our strategy would

work. i remember when i got my first letter of concern and sympathy from a friend in february or march and this friend quoted teddy roosevelt's famous line about the man in the arena. i don't know how many of you know these words. but it goes if you summarize it, it's no the the critic who counts, credit belongs to the man whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood and who if he fails fails daring greatly. i was touched and move by that letter. but then i got five more of them. and i thought wow, they seem to be worried about me. but i believed at that time that we had a very good plan. and that plan worked better than any of us hoped. within three months of taking office, the pace of decline in growth began to slow. by the summer of 2009, the

american economy was growing again. and just let me state it sharply, in about six months, the economy went from contracting at an annual rate of about 9% to expanding at an annual rate of about 2%. a swing of almost 11 percentage points in a remarkably short period of time. we were not just able to avert a second great depression, but also to begin the long -- the long and fragile process of repairing the damage and laying a stronger foundation for economic growth. so how is the economy performed since that early state? i believe that by any measure, the president's policies are making the economy stronger. since the summer of 2009, the economy's expanded at an average annual race of 2.5%. over the last two years, the economy's added 3.9 million private sector jobs. growth has been very broad-based

with strength in agriculture and energy in manufacturing and services and high-tech and growth has been led by business investment in equipment and software, which has risen by more than 30% over those 2 1/2 years by exports to grow about 25% in real terms over that same period. productivity has risen. households have made significant progress in reducing excessive burdens of debt, bringing the savings rate up, leverage in the financiase substantially. our fiscal deficits have started to decline as the share of the economy and our current account deficit which measures how much we're borrowing from the rest of the world has fallen to half of the precrisis level as the share of gdp. overall, the total amount of income and output of this american economy is now above the precrisis peak. millions of americans now have health care with better coverage because of the affordable care

act. and health care costs are rising less rapidly. we're becoming much more efficient in how we use energy more reliant on cleaner sources of energy. and communities across the country, we're seeing promising reforms in education to improve the quality of teaching in science and math and to improve access to higher education. the early shape of the expansion we should all find encouraging for the future trajectory of the economy. because growth is led by private demand with these strong gains in investment and exports. we've made real progress eliminating the economic imbalances. too much debt among individuals, too much leverage in the financial sector, too much construction in residential commercial real estate. the problems, the imbalances that created the unsustainable growth that proceeded the crisis. the balance sheet of the business sector is in remarkably

exceptionally strong shape and the economy as a whole is more productive than before the crisis. developments. but we still have a very tough economy and still face some very tough challenges ahead. unemployment of course is very high and improving more gradually than any of us would like. while we're seeing some welcome signs of stabilization in the housing market, we have a long way to go there. pension values have recovered much of the losses in the crisis, but of course as you know house prices are still very low. and these are the tragic legacies of that financial crisis. in addition to these legacies we still face a dangerous and uncertain world as the recent rise in oil prices demonstrates. americans of course can now feel the effects of higher gas prices. there's no quick and easy fix to that problem. but it re-enforces the importance of more progress to develop additional sources of energy on all fronts.

if you look at that expansion in historic comparison, this recovery is faster than the recoveries that followed the last two recessions. but it's somewhat slower than previous recoveries from very deep recessions. what explains this? what accounts for this? recoveries that followed financial crises are slower and more protracted as famously written. they are slower and longer and harder because the causes of financial crises typically a large rise in borrowing by house holds and the financial sector and too much investment in real estate those act to hold down growth as they are unwound as people bring down their debt burdens and raise their savings rate they spend less. as banks are forced to reduce risk and restore more prudent lending standards they lend less. these forces work against the impact of lower interest rates,

dampening the otherwise potentially powerful effects of monetary policy. there's a paradox in this in that the changes that are necessary to unwind the causes of the crisis and lay a more lasting foundation for growth in the future those changes necessarily slow the pace of expansion. the president inherited very large fiscal deficits swollen to levels well beyond any experienced since world war ii. the dramatic erosion in our fiscal position since 2001 and 2008 in the size of the fiscal deficits made the american people and their elected representatives uneasy about stimulus and this diminished our capacity to legislate significant fiscal actions beyond those in the recovery act. state and local governments have had to make severe cuts in employment and services raise taxes offsetting part of the substantial stimulus for the economy provided at the federal level.

of course, in addition, in 2010 and 2011 we were hit by a series of very substantial blows to growth from outside the united states. the european debt crisis, the oil shock and japan's debt crisis. these three shocks -- these three external shocks took a percentage point off gdp growth in 2011. on top of this finally, and remember this, the fear of national default provoked by the debt limit crisis in july of last year it did terrible damage to business and consumer confidence. the fall in confidence was quick and brutal as large as the declines in confidence you typically see in recessions. these are the most important reasons why the pace of expansion slowed after those first few quarters of recovery. without those challenges, without those forces, without those factors, the recovery would have been stronger.

but looking forward, the economic strategy for the united states? what's the mix of investments and reforms and policies that will make growth stronger and economic opportunity broader in the future? the three most important imperatives we face today are to support economic growth now, to make the right investments in reforms, to make our economy more competitive over time, and to restore fiscal sustainability. these imperatives will require that we resolve the fundamental political divide in this country that exists today over the appropriate role of the government in the economy. first, important to remain focused on this we have to stay relentlessly focused on strengthening the economy in the short-term. even though growth is gradually getting stronger, of course we have a long way to go to repair

the damage caused by the crisis. we face the additional challenges of europe facing a severe and very protracted crisis. and the world engaged in the critical struggle with iran, which is adding to upward pressure on oil prices. for these reasons we think there's a compelling need for additional action by the congress to strengthen growth and help get americans back to work more quickly. we'd like congress to act on the president's proposals to rebuild our nation's infrastructure, to help small businesses, and to prevent more layoffs of teachers and cops and firemen. we need to at this point to repair the damage to homeowners in the housing market by helping americans refinance their mortgages, to put more rental homes into the market, to help families who can afford to to stay in their homes or to transition to more affordable options. the president will continue to use his executive authority to help.

for example, by streamlining approvals for new infrastructure projects or streamlining regulations whose costs are large relative to their benefits. but these measures cannot substitute for action by the congress. now again, recoveries that follow financial crises are necessarily more tentative, more uneven, more protracted it's going to take years to fully repair the damage caused by this crisis. this is why it is so important still that policymakers continue to work to get the economy growing faster in the short-term and not shift prematurely to excessive fiscal restraint or shift the focus of policy entirely to reforms with only long-term payoffs. now the second economic imperative we face is to build a foundation for stronger future growth. this crisis as you know came on top of the set of economic challenges that took a long time to build up.

they've been building up for years. among those challenges are a long-term erosion in the relative quality of education for many americans. a long period of stagnation in real median incomes. diminished confidence in the ability of americans to exceed the economic achieveness of their parents. a substantial ongoing shift in the risk and cost of health care and pension security away from employers to employees. poverty rates much higher than those that prevail in any economy with comparable weather and a deteriorating public infrastructure. these are relatively new and unfamiliar challenges for this country. if you look back over history. we were remarkably successful as a country for a very long period of time in achieving much better economic outcomes than we saw in most countries around the world because we had leaders who put government policy to work in providing health care and

retirement security for retiring americans universal primary and secondary public education, the g.i. bill, the great public infrastructure projects of eisenhower and others in the last century. large investments in scientific research and sensible safeguards over the financial system. these long-term challenges for us as a country are more difficult in part because other nations around the world like china or brazil are getting better at making their economies grow and develop. and their success, though it brings huge opportunities for our country has put a huge amount of pressure on large parts of the american workforce who are engaged in making things other countries are getting better at making. now the president's strategy for meeting these sets of challenges is to focus on reforms and education, investments to support innovation to encourage public and private investment and to expand exports.

these challenges are not challenges the private markets can solve on their own. in education the president's working to make it more affordable for people to go to college working to improve the quality of teachers to improve training opportunities across industries where we are short of people with the necessary skills. these investments in educational reform need to be matched by greater investments in innovation. the economic case for government support for scientific research rests on the reality that private innovators, private investors can't always capture the full ben it fits of research and development. so they tend to underinvest relative to what would be optimal to the economy as a whole. these investments entail risk and they need to be designed to focus primarily on research and to maximize the role of the