reach new achievements in the years to come. thank you. >> thanks very much, john. you know, it is to putin's putin's credit that i don't think the russians got serious about the wto until he became president back in 2000. and that leads me to turn to you, susan, as you were directly involved in many of the negotiations for several years. what is your perspective on what this means for russia and for the wto? >> well, i must say this has gone on a very long time. speaking as one who put in several years, and betsy and others who are in the audience who were involved in the bilateral negotiation, the bilateral agreement phase of this. for those of you not familiar with the ins and outs of the wto process would know that there

are two stages. one, and this by the way is a miserable, miserable process for any country trying to come into the wto. this is not easy for russia, it was not easy for vietnam or ukraine or any other country, china, when china came in. being a latecomer to the wto, you're expected to come in and in five or ten years, do what every other country that's a member of the wto got 50 years to do. so let's put it into some perspective here. i had the opportunity to negotiate on these matters over an extended period of time, and in 2006, november of 2006 to be precise, managed to conclude the bilateral russia-u.s. agreement on russia's ex-session to the

wto. that paved the way for the situation where we find ourselves today. the short version of my remarks is one, russia is going to become a member of the wto this year. two, whether the united states graduates russia from jackson vannic or not, and therefore, three, the sooner the united states can move ahead with our own process so that we can fully take advantage of the, of russia's joining, becoming a member of the wto, the better. that's sort of the short version. the slightly longer version is that it's somewhat more complicated than all this, as we know with implications for the

various actors and i would begin by offering principle kudos and congratulations to the u.s. business community which has been up on capitol hill day in and day out making the case why it is in the interest of the united states as well as russia for them to join the wto. it is much in the interest of u.s. produced manufactured goods, agricultural exporters, servic services exporters, for russia to lower its bear yars to trade, for there to be dispute resolution enforcement opportunities, for those of you familiar with a remember site known as global trade alerts, the g-20 in november of 2008 at

the front end of the great recession, the g-20 members all pledged they weren't going to pose protectionist trade investment measures. two years out, gta measured -- was able to measure some 431 new protectionist trade and investment barriers that were imposed by g-20 members. of those 431, russia had imposed 85. of the g-20 members, only russia is not a member of the wto. i think the two are related. and it is in russia's interest to be able to have protections for its exports in the world, for russia to be able to diversify its markets, its production, away from just oil, gas, natural resources, but it is very much in the interest of

u.s. producers, u.s. exportors. so first cue dose to the u.s. business community. i had the sitting on the boards of boeing, of cat pillar, of fedex, i know caterpillar is up on the hill, i see scott miller from procter & gamble, but quite frankly, the business community can't do this by itself. the finance committee, bipartisan support, they are very much on record. and if it is going to happen, the sooner the better. so what next steps? well, if this is going to happen, the sooner the better, this is a june-july equation

that we should be talking about here. and for that we really need the white house to be stepping up and to engage with the leadership and the congress to work to make sure that the votes are there. and here we get into the issue that -- and this is sort of the awkward moment for me. i'm an economist. i'm told by every one who is counting noses on capitol hill that the way this legislation is going to move is that at some point in parallel there will be some other kind of legislation moving in the human rights area. is this is not my lane. this is what i'm told. this is what i read. if that is the case, then the white house needs to be up on the hill working that part of the equation and doing it promptly and doing it with a decision makers who are going to be making those decisions as well. so i put that out there because nobody else has yet.

and so, the sooner the better. >> thank you very much for those inspiring words, and putting it out there. i think we'll continue to follow up on that. klaus, you've also been on the barricades on this issue. and i think you've seen up close and personal, probably through your long career with siemens before and also now with alcoa what foreign company's engagement with russia means, what changes have taken place and what you see this most recent development possibly doing. >> yeah. let me give you basically four views. the first thing is what has happened on the commercial side. the second thing not everything is rosy and what needs to happen and we should be open about it. the third thing is what are the opportunities. and the last thing is connecting what you said before is what

needs to be done now together. i think you are absolutely right. it has to be done jointly between the political as well as the business community. so on the commercial side, i think you can't deny saying a lot of progress has been made. and human memory is usually very short, and frankly if you just look at the things that have happened over i would say the last three years, this is an unbelievable success. i mean, let's start with, we have had since the reset has been announced, four meetings, ceo to ceo and they have been super successful from both sides. if you look at the investment side of things, large investments have been made. we as alcoa have invested over a billion over there and really successfully. coca-cola making a commitment. the exxon deal, 500 million over

a decade. this is not small change. this is big. and we shouldn't just consider that as normal. you know, it is normal if it were a normal place, but under the conditions we have been operating under, especially pretty spectacular. so the business community has already voted. the business community says we're going to do business there. we wouldn't put our money behind there if we wouldn't see there's opportunities today. not just tomorrow, today. and for most it has worked out very very well. you see also from the russianian side, they put this investment fund together and capitalized well, it was $10 billion. not many places have been able to do that. so that's all good. little things, and quotations marks, like three-year multiple entry visas. now we have it. we've always been complaining about it. both of you big time involvement, thank you very much

to both of you, fantastic job. highly qualified immigrant work vee sas can be obtained. the business community has always said, particularly for those ones that are new in russia, what we do when we run into issues in the provernss. and the argument from the russian leadership has always been the country is really big and we don't know all the things that are going on. and we came up with a suggestion, why don't you establish a hotline. and the hotline became an om buds man. and that, if you listen to the business community over what has worked very well, it's particularly those who have entered newly into russia which they can go to elevate an issue and it's taken serious. so that's happening. and i think we should not ignore

that. we also should not ignore, let me come to my second point, that the picture isn't as rosy as you could walk away just looking at that. and i try to be as objective as possible and not to step on anybody's foot here. you have some transparency international, it's considered a good indicationtor transparency, russia in 2011 has made it in the same level of nigeria and uganda. knowing most -- i can not believe that is what anybody is aspiring for. 129 out of 183. it's on the same level as bangladesh and nicaragua and i don't think i need to say more. the commerce department has just come out on the ip protection right with a list and basically

has put russia as the least ip protection for 16 years in a row. that's all not good. that's all i would say, as a business person, room for improvement. big time room for improvement. we know, and i mentioned that a couple of teams, we in our facility last year had to file 88,000 pages for the tech authorities. that's a substantial improvement where it was over a00,000 pages. the good news is those things work but they work slowly. there's now a process in place to change it over to electronic system and we will be one of the first that will be trying this out and i'm relatively optimistic that this will work out. but this is the nonrosy side. so let me move on to the opportunities. because i think the business side wouldn't be as exciting, it wouldn't be going up to the hill and saying look, let's use this opportunity that has not been around for the last 18 years,

now wto is there, this is now about us, it's about jobs and business in the u.s. pntr has nothing do really with russia. this is about u.s. business profiting from it. and the export council of the president has done a very very good job in looking at export opportunities and they came up with a nice study saying we can double supports from the u.s. to russia in the next four to five years, i mean with the pntr status and having looked at that, that's pretty credible. we have done with the coalition that we founded, we have done a profile by each state. and basically put a radar together, what businesses are in each state that today have business with russia, that export to russia. we have it by state. it's pretty fascinating to see this. i have numbers from two states

here. new york exports goods in 2011 of about 500 million to russia. so basically doubling would mean more jobs. if you go to california, the number is 665 million of exports in the last year and 2,000 jobs behind it will double. can anybody really say today that we can afford to leave this on the table? and the other thing is, can you really think oh, we don't decide today. we probably have a chance to do it next spring. that's a total misassessment of how competition is today. because there are companies in other places in the world that are prepared to jump in immediately and basically take the opportunity. so i think, if it needs more convincing the arg upts i think are very very clear. and the business side is totally convinced. and i give you reasons why. i mean, john deere, has been very clear about that and educated all of us in the business community, he has 9% of

the world's land is in russia, 8% of the fresh water, 20% of the forest area. and then you look at the automation in the farming and he believes very strongly, we've looked at that, that you can double the grain output per lane if you automatic mate it more. that's the opportunities we talk about. >> tractors? >> tractors. exactly, just basically getting more out of it. the auto industry, gm, chevrolet is the top selling brand in russia. i didn't know that. thinking about all the fallout that was there. the the next point what needs to be done. i think it's absolutely clear. we want to hear and we have heard, but we'd like to hear it now from the new administration, absolutely unquestioned

commitment to the modernization. because that's what i believe russia needs and that's what the business community needs and that has a couple of facets but i think it would be good to clearly have that from the new leadership, clearly make that statement from the new leadership. we've heard it through some of the people that will be playing most likely a role in the administration, but it would be really important to hear it as a first message to the business community. a clear commitment from the new leadership towards modernization. and that also has the implication of good opportunities for business. the second thing is, the pntr, i think there's no question, i said it before. we need to make sure pntr gets passed. we've had over 100 meetings on the hill. you are right, there is now support from a number of important things. i talked to snar bacchus this afternoon, i think he's behind it and others are two, and this

is all good. i think you are absolutely right to also address the elephant in the room. and i totally agree with you, susan. this is critically important. it's also not my point to make it, but we have to be realistic that these things, these things, if they go parallel, it will complitically be seen as one. and i close it with that. >> thanks very much. following up on the points that you were both making, that granting russia pntr, as senator bacchus put it recently, it's a slam dunk. the argument from the economic commercial argument, the standpoint of u.s. national interest, it is a slam dunk. i wrote a piece last week where, in a very intellectual way i

concluded that it would be idiotic for the united states not -- >> tech nickal term. but there are two problems. one, this is a campaign year here. so getting congressmen and senators to make a vote that would be viewed by many as doing something positive for russia when in fact it's doing something positive for the united states is a challenge. and two, while the economic argument is clear, this is not just going to be about an economic argument. i think this is going to be a broad referendum about russia. and that takes us back to the realm of our ambassadors. that, you know, what is the argument to make about, i think there's a very strong argument to make about how improved

relations with the russian federation have in fact served the u.s. national interest, and russian national interest. john, how would you characterize that argument in a nutshell that would put this in a different light? >> well, i think it's clear that we, the united states, want to see a strong democratic -- a strong democratic russia that has an economy that's producing for its people. that's the kind of partner that we need in the 21st century, and that means that we like many russians that we know, many russian citizens have a stake in seeing institutions biment inside russia that make russia -- there's no question that's in our interest. and we go about that in many different ways. as i said, i think the central

way is trying to build a stronger economic relationship with russia, because it's good for both countries and it also serves political cycles, the ups and downs that we see periodically. i think it means that we need to speak very frankly as we do in private when we see things happening in russia that we think perhaps aren't leading it to that stronger, more democratic, more stable future. this in the end depends on the russian people themselves and on russian leaders. if we as americans are making it clear to the russians that we see them as a desirable strong partner, and that our desire to see them strengthen their institutions is really just part of what we stood for as a nation for 200 years, then i think

perhaps some of the unpleasantness that sometimes gets this dialing back and forth can go away. how that plays out exactly in the context of lifting the jacksonback amendment and granting the pntr to russia, we'll have to see. the administration is committed to seeing granting pntr to russia and we're committed to working with congress to do this in a way that is good for the u.s. russian relationship for years to come. >> the internal political debates and -- >> i hear what you say. >> i will tell you a couple of things. one, we have big self reliant

respecting our partners, and we certainly insist that our partners respect us. the way that sometimes people try to teach others what is good and what is wrong in russia for russians, sometimes goes beyond something we can accept. i pick up the argument john left us with and that is the goal should be pntr, not pntr for russia, for american business in russia. you need to understand that. because we have been invited to wto. we are going to be there the moment the documents are rectified in russia. whether united states gives us pntr, no, it is not something

that we want to continue for several reasons. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestages of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestage of the cold war still with us and reflections of a wider problem in our relations, and the cold war mentality that sometimes still persists as one of my american colleagues said to me we have victims of the post cold war handover which is right. very frequently we judge each

other through this [ inaudible ] that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. with want to work with the americans and do business with the americans, and we want you to be present in the russian market and we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies and like our companies eyeing the american market more and more, and we plan to diversify economy and mr. kleinfeld said it would be very important for us to recommit ourselves. i can tell you it is something that we are fully committed to and we are going to continue. that's not because the american business wants us to do it. it is because it is something that we need and divided that we want to do for the benefit of russian economy, for the benefit of the russian people. we are rich country. we are rich in everything. we have the table, all of it

under our feet in russia. we have well educated people, excellent engineers, physicists, and we now have a new breed of managers, most probably you will be able to confirm that all the companies that are working in russian now extensively rely on the russian management. we have a new generation of people who are entering the market economy. mind you, we are still a young market economy. just try to imagine, it is only around 20 years and try to look at the united states 20 years constitution. i would say that we are extremely proud of what we have been able to achieve. we are continuing. we have the way we apply sometimes the rules ourselves develop and we are working and there have been a number of things that have been recently

introduced in order to make our democracy more modernized and more adapt to the wish of the people as a result of political debate that is more and more lively. so what is happening is russia is because we do it for ourselves, not because we are told to by americans or anybody else. i think that what we have been doing in russia is falling in line with your ability to work with us as a real partners. if that is not the case, and once again would like to draw your attention to what john said and i fully agree with him that pntr needs to be granted in a way that wouldn't under mine russian american relations. ambassador referred to the legislation and we all know what

it is buzz i do not know the final version of what it is going to be. we know what is behind it. i will tell you up front that if that kind of legislation is adopted, it will deal a significant blow to our ability to work in a number of areas. because we will be working with the united states in as much as the united states is willing to work with us in a respectful, mutually beneficial way. i think that the opportunities are great. unless somebody wants to -- the materialized we can do it. >> the unmentioned piece of legislation goes by the moniker of the magninsky act. google it. i have concern that the administration is shying away

from a debate, a public debate on russian policy during the campaign year, and i don't think that they should. i think there are a lot of very positive data points you can point to, how hinges that russia has done have really served u.s. interests. one of the little less known ones has to do actually with the new transit corridors and not so new now, the transit corridors that supply u.s. troops and forces in afghanistan in which the russian federation plays a key role. three and a half years ago our troops in afghanistan were all being supplied through the port of corache and through two what the military calls ground looks of communication, g-looks, that get into afghanistan right on the border. until three years ago we were totally dependent upon that supply line. with the opening of new supply lines that go through the caspian states, central asia, and russia, that made us, we had

less vulnerable to whatever might happen in pakistan, whatever might happen in the u.s. pakistani relationship. there has been a political sparring the last couple of weeks about killing osama bin laden and the advisability of who said what on the campaign trail. all i can say is that a year ago may if we didn't have those other ground locks of communication and the cooperation for the russian federation, the calculation about whether to carry out that strike on osama bin laden would have been very different and you might have found more opposition in the room than just defense secretary gates at the time in a different decision. so with that i think we have about 15 minutes or so for questions and discussions with the audience so there are microphones around the room and please raise your hand and note your affiliation and limit yourself to one brief question. thank you.