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. exporters. so, first, kudos to the u.s. business community. i had the privilege of sitting on the boards of boeing, of caterpillar, 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.

chairman baucus of the senate finance committee, chairman kempe, this is bipartisan support for moving for russia. they are very much on record for moving it. 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 a trade policy person. i am not a for policy person. i am not a human rights person. but i am told by everyone 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.

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 companies'

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, and we have been open. 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. the business community has a clear view. 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 almost a billion over there and really successfully. coca-cola making a commitment. for $3 billion over five years. the exxon deal, $500 million over a decade. could go on $1.4 billion. 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. i would say. so the business community has already voted. the business community says we're going to do business there. it's working out. we wouldn't put our money behind there and others wouldn't 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 russian 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. always had a great year. fantastic, fantastic job. highly qualified immigrants. work visas can be on obtained and are great. the business community has always said, particularly for those ones that are new in russia, not the ones we have been dealing for years, what we do when we run into issues in the provinces. 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 and good cooperation, why don't you establish a

hotline. that's how it evolved. and the hotline became an ombudsman. 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 the issue is 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 indication for transparency, russia in 2011 has made it to the whopgs position on the same level of nigeria and uganda. knowing the aspirations of most russians that i've been dealing with, i cannot believe that is

what anybody is aspiring for. world bank has come in 2011 and it's the fantastic position of 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 in samarrah last year had to file 88,000 pages for the tech authorities. that's a substantial improvement where it was over 100,000 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 non rosy 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 accession is there, this is now about us, it's about jobs and business in the u.s. pntr has nothing to 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 exports 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, dealing with the u.s./russia business side, we have done a profile by each sta 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. if you go two states -- i have numbers from two states here. new york exports goods in 2011 of about 500 million to russia. and there's 1,400 behind. so basically doubling would mean for the state of new york 1,400 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 arguments i think are very, very clear, and the business side is totally convinced. and i give you reasons why. i mean, john deere, sam allen, 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 grape output per land if you automate it more. that's the opportunities we talk about. >> tractors? >> tractors. exactly, just basically getting more out of it. the auto industry, i didn't know that. gm, chevrolet is currently the

top selling brand in russia. did you know that? i didn't know that. thinking about all the fallout that was there. 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 senator baucus this afternoon, i talked to him a couple of times, but i think he's behind it and others are, too, and this is all good. you mentioned dave cam. 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 politically 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 baucus 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 -- >> technical term. >> very highly technical term, beat i beating around the bush. 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 built inside russia that make russia more strong. 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 as something as a shock absorber for the political cycles 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 scratchiness, some of the unpleasantness that sometimes gets this dialogue back and forth can go away. how that plays out exactly in the context of lifting the jackson/vanek 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./russia relationship going

forward for years to come. >> ambassador? >> do you want me to interfere in the internal political debates of the u.s.? >> i'll let you know after i hear what you say. >> i will tell you a couple of things. one, we have big self-reliant country, 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, to be honest, it's pntr 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 pn it tr or not, it is not something that we want to continue for several republics. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestiges of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which one cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson/vanek appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestige 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 hangover, which is right. very frequently we judge each other through this that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. we want to work with the americans. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies 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 decided 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, mathematicians, 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 after adoption of constitution. i would say that we are extremely proud of what we have been able to achieve. we are continuing. we have faults in the way we apply sometimes the rules we, ourselves, develop and we are working on them. 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 whatever is happening in 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, i 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 undermine russian/american relations. ambassador schwab referred to the legislation. we all know what it is. however, 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 torpedo that kind of opportunity materialized, we can do it. >> the unmentioned piece of legislation goes by the moniker of the magninsky act. google it. i have some 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 things 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 karachi 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 little bit of 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. yes? >> jesse ransom with the public international policy group. can you briefly talk on syria and how that is affecting u.s./russia relations and how that could potentially affect u. u.s./russia w it to discussions as well? >> john, do you want to take a crack at that one? >> well, we all see what's happening in syria with increasing alarm. we have been watching this develop i wouldn't say in slow motion over the last six to eight months.

it is quite appalling. we are as a government determined to seep the killing end and to see stability return it to that part of the world and to syria in particular. but to do this, the united states needs to work in concert with our allies. we need to work in concert particularly with those countries in the united nations that form with us the p-5. russia i think shares the goal. i won't speak for sergei. i will let him speak. i think they share the goal of stability and an end to violence. we share a strategic vision of what's happening in syria, but we've had some disagreement on the tactics that we should take to bring that about. we are committed to continuing to do everything in our power to end the violence, to see an orderly succession take place.

we have made very, very clear we think president assad's time has come and gone. and we hope very, very much through the dialog we've had with russia and with our other partners in new york, that we will continue to find ways to hasten that kind of change in transition so that the people in syria can live normal lives free from fear, free from violence. >> i will add to that that we want violence ceased. we want political dialog of all the sides in syria to be engaging and successful because we do not believe that anybody be it in washington, or in europe or in moscow can or should tell the syrians as to how they need to lead further and who is going to be the next president. it needs to be done by the syrians themselves for obvious

reasons because they have to decide their own future and we need to be able to recognize it, all of us, so the difference was he especially in the initial stage how you approach all of these issues. currently i think we have a little bit more of common ground because both the united states and russia supports the so-called annan plan for the immediate steps to be taken in syria and then we'll see how the political dialogue and political process can be organized in this country. but we insist it needs to be done by the syrians themselves and not to be dictated from outside. >> okay. more topics. >> excuse me, and the second part of the question was how it affects russian and america relations. i would say that it is one of the issues on which we do not see eye-to-eye but at the same time it doesn't undermine our

ability to work on issues where we do agree, and here i think we have a little bit more normalcy in our relations. disagreements occur, especially on issues that are very explosive and important to both kcountries. but at all points even at the points of significant disagreements, i think we had pretty open and respectful dialog on this issue. >> thanks. we'll collect two or three questions right here in the front and over there to the left. >> lloyd hand, let me put this question to you. i have been listening very carefully and it is very clear to me there is a consensus that we should grant pntr. i have gathered that the white house should speak out a little more forcefully. what isn't clear and i hope e