about ucos in just a moment here. but isn't it, rather than urging the emergency to begin addressing the problem, isn't this the time that we would be better off addressing problems so that we could get the commitments up front. let me ask you first, mr. larsen. >> senator kyle, i think you raise a very important point, it's not an easy one to be quite honest. i think that in my experience in diplomacy it is important not to let perfect be the enemy of good. and i think my own personal view is that we should seize the opportunity that's created by nptr and have russia be in the wto. but if we stop right there, we have only down part of the job. as i said in my oral remarks, this is something that the congress and the administration should work together. it should not be -- it need not

be a partisan issue. it's something that -- >> let me just interrupt. this is not a partisan issue. and, yes, congress and the administration need to work together. my question goes to when we are most likely to get cooperation, which, let's face it, has been very difficult coming. i want to ask mr. williams a question, if i could here. >> but can i just -- one-half sentence? >> sure. >> i do think it's very important that congress sees the opportunity to ask the m to come forward with a plan for how they're going to implement these other sides of the rule of law triangle. >> i appreciate that. none of us here object to the proposition that russia can accede to wto with our approval and our good folks do business

abroad will help even more. there's no disagreement about that, the question is how do we -- dragged its feet over and overed a over. i hope to be able to get to the ucos situation in a moment. but mr. williams talked about a very practical problem, a very practical problem of the russian court system. and i just want to ask you, given the track record that you want to identify, do you have improvements where the russian duma takes step to reduce the intellectual property reforms. >> absolutely, i do have concerns, i'm also 71 years old and i have reached that point in my life that i notice when you move into an area where i lack the expertise to say one is better than the other i would have to point out that i'm the wrong person to tell you that we need to make these adjustments before or after the npr is granted. i will tell you that we're in the rare position at ascap and

other administrators, i understand your stance completely, we're in a position where whether it's granted or not, our music is going to continue to grow and movies are going to continue to grow in the country. my specific concern as an organization, we don't have a specific stance on npr. i will tell you right now, i sit here and i can imagine watching the prospects of china stepping in if we can't do business. for my administration, i have to represent them and i would say that what we need is no matter what happens from nptr, we need some action zealing with the government, dealing with the judges, dealing with a value added tax that is totally unfair. where we hopefully will not wind up with a situation like china where i get more money from honduras than i do from china. it's terrifying. >> because my time is so short,

that's the point i'm trying to make here. that's the things that we could hold china to, we had a very thick document with china. yet you the report that i held up. it's very difficult after you have granted the status to then get them to really fulfill the commitment that they have made. that's the concern we have about granting the status to russia prior to the negotiation of the other two legs of the stool. i'm not suggesting that we have perfection at any time when we're dealing with an emerging country like russia. but i'm to understand that you have the best negotiating position to demand those things that we're demanding a rule of law that other recognized nations. >> the one let me that is of greatest concern to us too is that the value added tax could become a press tent for other countries and that would be the damage to american music creators songwriters and composers is beyond what i could state here, it would be yuj.

-- huge. >> senator cornyn? >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. chairman i want to spend my time actually covering a subject that may or may not call from a response to the -- on february 5, russia and china blocked a u.n. security council resolution that would have endorsed an arab league plan for assaad and syria to step down. it would have supported a demand that syrian troops with stand -- russia has for its own reasons intervened in a way that has destabilizes the world and helps

iran in this instance remains to be the continued benefit of president assaad to stay in power. but i want to highlight this issue. this has to do with how president assaad is getting arms with which to kill innocent syrian citizens, some 8,000 of them according to reports from the united nations. it's not only a question of russians exporting arms to syria to kill innocent civilians, it's also the fact that the department of defense, the united states department of defense has a contract with that same russian arms exporter. and i sent a letter, mr. chairman, to secretary of defense, a bipartisan raising this issue. imagine my surprise when i found

that russia's not only selling weapons to hugo chaves in venezuela and also syria, but also that we have a contract for the department of defense to sell helicopters. this is a no bid contract awarded by the army just last summer. several months after the syrian uprising began and it's worth $375 million. that's $375 million u.s. taxpayer dollars going to a russian arms merchant arming president assaad in which he is killing innocent syrians. the proceeds of this contract

are helping finance these mass acrossities. i should also note that sere y'all has a history of not actually paying for those weapons according to press reports than president vladimir putin wrote off nearly 75% of syria's $13.5 billion debt for arms sales. i think it's unconationable that u.s. taxpayers would be put in this position where their hard earned tax dollars would indirectly subsidize mass murder. even in the face of mounting evidence that -- let me just conclude by asking a reforable question.

than any of the other witnesses would care to make, it would be welcome. if you want to create jobs here in america, and we want to grow the economy in both our trading partners economies and here in the united states, but whether it's corruption, whether it's enabling international states like iran, whether it's arming thugs and murderers like president assaad in syria. do we say the kwos is just too high in terms of sacrificing our basic values and protecting human rights? >> that's quite a setup.

>> i'll try my best. pntr status and preventing it will in any way change those issues, those issues still need to be solved. i would argue that pntr status, i would argue that giving all of us and continuing to move that country along will be positive. our businesses are all going to go down. i have real life examples i could get you. >> i would like for the

witnesses to decide between themselves. who's ready. senator mendez? >> thank you sh mr. chairman. i want to pick up for some of my colleague who is have spoken about here. i appreciate that prussia presents a tremendous business market for american companies and that wto rules will hopefully level the playing field for american companies to do business in russia. but at the same time, lifting jackson vanek is a huge benefit to russia. and i'm sure the committee understands the efforts of leverage in a negotiation. i think you do that all the time in your businesses. it seems to me this is a moment in which there is leverage attend of the day, and this is a huge benefit to russia both politically and economically. and a lot of us are feeling like this is a good time to be rewarding russia for about anything.

the recent elections make a mockery of democracy, democratic governments are far better to operate under, transparency, rule of law, safety of contracts, transparency of intellectual contracts. the human rights situation in russia is not improving. my colleague is not an exception unfortunately by any means and when we ask for help to stop the u.n. security council to -- we get niet in return. now let me make the case for our business friends. look at how gas prices are going through because of instability in iran. gas prices not only for consumers in america and drivers in america, but for the creation of products. when all of you use fuels that

are necessary for the creation of your product or for delivery of your products to the market preys. i can look at this and make a connection not only on the principle of human rights but on the economics of it as well domestically, so what i would hope we would see from the business community which seems to lack, is a dual track approach that addresses everyone's needs and concerns where we find a way forward on repealing jackson vanek but also find a way forward on trying to improve russia's human rights records. we need a vehicle like the mcnitski bill that says that we're serious about human rights. so i would like to ask, particularly the members of the business community here, do you not see the correlation between

the consequences of a russia that does these things and the domestic concerns that we have that actually in addition to the value that you obviously see. and can you not join in the voices that say, yes, let us remove jackson vanek so that we can get the full benefit of russia's participation of the wto, but let's also pursue these other things that actually have an affect, not only in terms of our legitimate interests in h human rights and democracy, but also in u.s. economic consequences back here at home. i would like to ask all the business leaders and to mr. larsen, i would like to ask, do you perceive the ability of russia to eliminate the pervasive corruption that seems to affect all aspects of customer rights.

>> i would say at first, most people recognize india as a larges democracy. we deal with every bit of the corruption in india that which deal with in russia. so i think we -- we certainly want to see that corruption change, but the culture and the movement forward is going to be a long process, it won't be an event driven process. >> and on the first part of my question, do you not see the mention sis that. >> yes, i do see those actions.

>> mr. chairman, if i could just get mr. larsen to answer the latter question. >> thank you senator mendez. what i have requested is that on the occasion of congressional consideration of pntr, that the administration should present a plan for tackling some of these corruption issues. one making sure that russia adheres to its obligations under the oecb anti-bribery convention which its just joined, two that there be serious cooperative effort to tackle the issue of corruption in customs and tax administration and the jew dash

area and three that there be scope for civil society organizations to report on instances of suspected corruption. i think all of that is part of creating a strong rule of law framework for business. i also believe that the expansion is part of that rule of law frame work, but i think we should do both. >> i appreciate your leadership in this effort. i think we are all on our committee sympathetic to the russian federation and we held hearings recently on the subject of human rights and democracy here in russia.

we're sort of talking past each other a little bit here. and i think missing the point. russia's going into the wto. this is not a negotiation like panama or one of the other trade treaties we had where we were opening up and lowering tariffs and doing things, we're not here, we don't do anything, russia's in the wto and if we don't lift jackson vanek, we're denying our own workers, that's all that's happening here. what's interesting is, i hope senator kyle you have seen the letter here, stating their strong view that the continued application of jackson vanek to russia is, quote, not helpful for the promotion of human rights and democracy in russia. and efforts to punish russia by retaining jackson vanek future hampers the economic development

and frustrate it's democratic aspirations. so i think we ought to listen to the folks in russia who are on the ground fighting for these things. russia going to -- the nptr is the only way that the -- if we want to cut off our nose to spite our face we can sit here and complain about what's happening there, it's a pretty simple equation. so let me ask you, mr. paullet, won't passing of npto -- >> it would absolutely put us at a competitive disadvantage to our european counterparts. >> so bar the risks of losing

market share in russia if we don't pass the npr? >> to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and probabl millions of dollars and several hundred jobs in the aviation industry. >> i understand that the bilateral treaty have only applies to exports and goods, is that correct? >> correct. >> so, even with our bilateral agreement if we don't pass the pntr the largest trade gains will be in services? >> also correct. >> the only way to hop that up is to lift jackson vanek. >> correct. >> which incidentally we taught do the things we say we'll do. jackson vanek is about immigration. every president has signed off since it went into effect in 1974 that they are dealing with immigration. we did it in order to allow the immigration of soviet jews. that's happened and happening.

so, we send the terrible message as we try to negotiate with people when we kind of pull things out and misapply them and counter apply them, we don't have any protection under the bilateral agreement, to we on intellectual property rights. mr. williams spoke to that. and the dispute settlement process at wto at least gives us that kind of protection, doesn't it, mr. williams? >> well, in china wto didn't exactly solve all of our problems. to give that specific example in 20001 china was admitted to wto in 2009 they stestablished a ra for our music on television and radio. it was a tiny rate. as i listen to you talk about the human rights issues and all these elements, and the problems that everyone is facing, you make amazing sense and i understand that.

but for my organization what we're looking at a situation where wto is simply, without really aggressive action from our government to protect -- >> we need aggressive action. a lot of folks here, myself included arguing we need to get tougher and we can do more within the context with china. i think we're pushing to do that. my time is running. i don't want to cut you off. i want to ask one question here. does the existence of jackson vanek today further the cause of democracy and human rights in russia in any way that we can measure. >> excuse me. i have testified that i think that removal of jackson vanek and extension of pntr is an important step in establishing a rule of law basis for our relationship. i think there are a lot of other things we should do and my urging we should go forward with those as well. >> our ambassador to russia has called $50 million of new money

to be supportive of civil society development efforts in russia. do you think we should make that money available and be put to good use for reform effort? >> i think that would be a good step. we have to strengthen civil society in russia. one of the things i advocate is we work with the russians to establish for space and freedom for civil society organizations like transparehank transparency corruption. as i understand this proposal that would be one additional tool for doing so. >> but -- sorry my time is up. >> just one second. since senator kerry might have been out of the room when i put the letters in the record, the piece in the "wall street journal" specifically referred to the letter that you quoted and as they say of course no one

in russia is foolish enough to defend jackson vanek but we understand it should be replaced with something else. s next senator grassley. >> i was in and out because of other committee meetings. looking over your testimony and hearing what i heard, i don't have any disagreement with the point you made. but i would like to make this point and maybe it refers nor agriculture than it does other aspects of our economy. but russia was inviteed into the wto and if they change their laws by a certain date in june that they have to change them and then it's our responsibility to deal with jackson vanek and at various times in the past i found reason to vote to change

jackson vanek for particular countries that we've had to do that. the thing that bothers me is that once a country is in the wto -- i know we have the process of wto to resolve differences. it's kind of a very rigorous process. and one that's not very easy to predict what might happen but you hope the rule of law is going to govern in the final analysis. but between now and whenever we have to deal with jackson vanek, it seems to me that the white house is not doing what they ought to be doing use the pressures that we have yet to make sure that, that particularly in agriculture and particularly with pork that russia lives up to the spirit as well as the responsibilities of wto and that's what i would call

upon the white house to do if they want to have smooth sailing on the jackson vanek proposition. oil yield back the rest of my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> you can see all of that hearing tonight at just after 11:00 eastern on our companion network c-span 2 and any time at c-span.org. they would wear garmens made of homespun cloth. this homespun cloth would be much more rough textured. be much less fine than the kinds of goods that they could import from great britain. but by wearing this homespun cloth women were visibly and vividly and physically displaying their political sentiments. >> sunday night at 9:00, george

mason university professor on the role of women during "the revolution"ary war part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. our system is fundamentally undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways is closed primaries. so in half the states in the country, 40% of all the voters can't participate in the primaries. and so they have no say who gets nominated. and as a result we get more and more extreme candidates on both end of the spectrum. >> saturday night at 10:00 eastern on after words, linynin killian writes in "the swing vote" about voters in prirms. and "the fox effect" how it was turned into an arm of the

republican party. and on sunday night "ameritopia." book tv every weekend on c-span 2. >> i was confided a radical as a young person and i was the one that thought that the, you know, we shall overcome was really not a very effective way of gaining civil rights and i think that i thought that more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist and substitute host for rush limbaugh, walter williams on acradical. >> i believe that a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. and i've always been a person who believed that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing so long as i don't violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams sunday night at 8:00 eastern and

pacific on q and a. now politics on policy news on c-span's radio "washington today." washington around the country we're on xm satellite channel 119. "washington today" is coming up in one minute. >> on march 26th, 27th and 28th the u.s. supreme court hears challenges to the health care law. you'll hear an argument cited in some of those cases saturday on c-span historic oral argument from 1992 the consolidated case, the state of new york and others petitioners versus the united states and others