physicians to spend with those patients. they can go longer if they need to. there is no real limits on how long the need to do that. our follow-up visits are routinely about half an hour long. we feel the the most valuable thing that physicians can do when they're relating to patients in the outpatient setting is to have adequate time to sit down and talk to them, get to know really what their problems are, their concerns, because it is frequently not their condition. it is frequently something around the condition related to it. they need to spend time getting to know the families to understand what their desires are parade our ability to protect that -- with their desires are. our ability to protect that, time with patients is where this is generated. .

remarks from former supreme court justice david souter, and all look at how people approach classified information. we will hear from two and -- two inspector general's from the cia. >> last week since finance committee chairman max baucus unveiled his solution to the nation's health-care system. many members will weigh on on that tomorrow. we have live coverage on 9:00

a.m. eastern here on c-span. and now the deputy prime minister of russia and russia's ambassador to the united states. this event was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. it is just under 90 minutes. >> i like to remind you that this is not just an embassy advent -- events but we have been preparing an good partnership with this group. it is a wonderful partnership for us because these two institutions have been doing russian studies, one focusing on political and strategic - issue, and the other on economics.

we want to continue these partnerships and our fans here at the embassy. we are extremely fortunate to have mr. shuvalov. i do not think that he needs to be formally introduced because he is very well known, not only in russia but throughout the world. is one of the formidable experts and government management and the as the first deputy prime minister. mr. shuvalov is very much involved in developing strategic plans and economic affairs of the russian government. we appreciate him taking time, and like to invite mr. shuvalov to make an introductory statement and we will continue

fred bergsten and andrew kuchins, the coordinator for this event. i am back to the floor. -- i invite you to the floor. [applause] >> good morning, you're all very busy people. english is not my language so forgive me, but i am comfortable speaking in this language. i like english and not like american english and i like america. [laughter] so here in the united states i was visiting different institutions two years ago, and it was of very interesting trip for me.

-- it was of very interesting trip for me. we were discussing the test of all outcomes after the elections and i was speaking with american colleagues and said it the third candidate, and the next morning, everybody in my country was laughing about the whole situation, that here in the states i was speaking with americans, people who think about russia and write about russia, and here i was talking about candidates who would be possibly taking the position of the russian presidency. now it is after a different situation, we are passed some difficult times at the moment. i hope that the worst time is behind. it does not mean that we're not

prepared yet something bad happens again -- if something bad happens again, but the situation in my country is better than a year ago. then we were observing the bankruptcy of lehman brothers, and we are observing and then we were feeling at -- it, that the economy was suffering. credit and loans were not possible for the industries. the indices were dramatically declining, and it was absolutely clear that we would not be a paradise island somewhere without reserves. in september of last year, we have almost $600 billion reserved. and just a few months earlier,

it seemed like russia, even with all the sufferings that we've had, that russia would be somewhere a safer place and we do not have any problems. again, in september, it was absolutely clear that we would all surfer, even more than the states and european countries. immediately we understood that nobody would help, because the partners from the g-eigh8 would have their own problems. the biggest problems would be in america. it was obvious that germany and japan would suffer, and russia, because of its economy is -- economic structure. we realize that there was no spending money. we had to do something in order to cope with possible

redundancies, but pensioners, with people who are losing jobs, and with industries that needed -- which could not sell any of its products. white metal, oil, gas, and we have dramatically reduced prices -- and we had dramatically reduce prices and a quantity of products. it was not possible to take care of half the demand of the metals that we were selling in the middle of 2008. we realized that we would need to first of all said our fiscal and banking sectors. it was the same as in the states as elsewhere. it was a very difficult task because our banking system is not well developed.

we have people in my country who do not trust the banking sector, because in 1998 many people lost their savings. immediately there were rumors that every thing people say for the period of 10 years would be burned immediately, and they would not get anything. so we guaranteed their deposits , we adopted special legislation to guarantee people their money after 12,000 euros. and then the banks -- we

provided special loans for these banks and we let them exist. only six banks during that year were taken over by a special governmental agency. everyone else survived. we thought -- in a country we have 1200 -- in my country we have 1200 banks, which may be a lot, and there were 600 or 700 very good based banks. in reality, we're at the stage where we have only 30 banks which lost their licenses, and six banks were taken over by the

government to honor all the obligations and to pay all their money back to them -- the ordinary people. so worst months were december, january, and february, and we were not just giving the money to the people as you very often read in the press that the russian government was doing things like that which was not true. we realized that from all the reserves that we had, we can spend for our needs including reforms. and during those months, we decided that pension reform, which we needed beforehand, we would fulfill and we would spend enormous amounts of money and we would start launching pension reform in 2010. we had huge critics from different people saying that

maybe we needed to save that money for -- spend money on infrastructure to support different industries, but we realized that this is a key issue if we talk about modernization. we need to set out the problem with your chin -- with future pensions, and they need to understand how they will be supported by the whole pension system. so doing those different things, setting those different industries, giving money to different people, we started to think about our future agenda. and then president medvedev announced that we must exit from politics in 2009 with a new agenda of modernization. when the crisis was over, then it should be obvious that everybody -- to everybody that we're starting a new structure

to our economy. he created a special commission with five different directions of work. [unintelligible] we are preparing now our budget for 2010, so that when a crisis finishes, we have an agenda that will create a better economy. we started talking about a knowledge-based economy when we hosted a g-8 summit in petersburg -- st. petersburg. even talking about energy security, we wanted to tell all of our partners that for russia, the future is not only oil and gas, metals, and others, but we think to create along with your help and assistance and knowledge-based economy.

and now we're doing this. it will take all lot of effort and funds, and that is why we need to work together in the g- 20 format and the g-8 format in order to coordinate all of our actions and fight against crisis. to fight the crisis globally and to get something new for our economy, which will lead russia of to a status of very reliable partners, providing oil, gas, and other resources, and at the same time being an interesting place to invest, ensuring that people living in russia are doing the same things as in the state's and the european

economies, doing a product which is knowledge-demanded, understanding that we have skills and abilities to develop our economy into something completely new. at the same time, we understand now that the political structure is well organized. many people ask the same question about how the structure works, with prime minister putin, who is definitely the leader of the party and well respected in the country, and president medvedev. and now it is obvious that it works like a well oiled team. they work as a whole team, the

government works and the administration works as the whole team. we do not observe any contradictions or something, because in the constitution we have completely clear outlines for obligations and the powers of the president and prime minister, the government as a whole, so we observe that everybody has his job and do it very successfully. it is not an easy time with redundancy, and social -- it was very difficult for people because many lost their jobs and could not pay that -- their mortgages and so on. but we understand that the organization is pretty stable and now unemployment is reducing and the whole system

works very stable. at the moment we have a positive economic growth for the third month in a row. we have positive growth. we understand that the whole plan we invented in november 2008 was completely right -- we implemented in 2008 was completely right. we knew we would observe a dramatic policies, and the second half of the year, it would be positive for the russian economy along with the chance we observed globally. and in pittsburg, at the g-20 we will get together in a few days to discuss different issues. and one of them is reserve currencies, and i want to

confirm that our internal plans for the ruble, to convert the ruble into a regional reserve currency, it is still on the agenda, and we think it is completely possible because the ruble is not trading very high, lower than predicted. i think this year it will be lower than 11%. along with that, i like to tell you about the dollar. there are many articles that you can read about our opposition against the dollar which is not true. we always say that the dollar is the strong currency. we have our reserves in dollars, and we think that the bid -- to be defended -- to be depended on the one reserve currency is not very wise.

for russians, it is very important. we will build up the ruble as a reserve currency for the region, and we will stand up -- still depend on the dollar, we will rely on the dollar, and we think that the dollar has a very strong future. but that means that all together, along with the american politicians and experts, we need to create new rules of working together globally with more reliable currencies. this is for the beginning. i think your questions are good. [applause] >> thank you very much for the introductory remarks. let me simply say at the outside

that i am fred bergsten, director of an institute. thank you very much to the ambassador for hosting this event. this is an elegant new facility here and we are proud and pleased to be with you, particularly to co-host this event to for the deputy prime minister. and as she said, week at the peterson institute of what our colleagues at the cis, do a lot of work on the russian economy as well as other parts of the world economy. we recently published this book called the russia balance sheet -- transmitted directly to the deputy prime minister -- rico wrote that book and and now are in the second study under our present balance sheet project, the objective of which is to better explain what is going on in the russian economy, the secure and -- the security and foreign policy issues to an american audience. we hope that you -- we provide

you with some of the constructive policies that you are looking for. and now we will propose are questions to the speaker of the morning. >> thank you very much. let me express on behalf of john henry and c i s, my thanks to the ambassador for hosting this wonderful event today in this wonderful new room at the embassy. we hope that this is the first of a number of things that we can collaborate together on. secondly, i like to thank very much igor shuvalov for gracing us with his presence here in washington today. he has a large political responsibilities and has a bright political future, and it is always a pleasure to see you interact and sorry that i missed you at the valdai institute discussions. it is wonderful to know that the

outset where we were a year ago. i am sure that the ambassador has not forgotten as heroes -- he is -- as he arrived in washington then. we had a war in georgia, and that was the nadir of our relationships for a long time. he was virtually frozen and there was much discussion of a new cold war. and then as he mentioned, lehman brothers went bust in early september and we enter the global economic crisis. the only good news about that for russia is that the global economic crisis to the georgian war and rushed off the front pages here in the united states. it also took it away as a campaign issue. but it was a very tough time. i remember seeing john henry and hallway at c i s, asking me how i was. with a global depression and a new cold war, i am great.

and mrs. lincoln, how was the play? [laughter] i did want make one comment. mr. obama was elected, promising to work on u.s.-russian relations. there was a reset in russian relations talked about. and there are some issues driving this reset, mainly iran, afghanistan, and nuclear security and arms control. i think that the reset has been facilitated also with some other issues on the agenda which have been less featured. one of these is the ballistic missile defense issue coming out of the obama administration. and that raises the question of the my so-called ballyhooed grand bargain, if you will. the trade a missile defense for more russian support on an

iranian sanction, that many people have talked about. such grand bargains in international relations are very rare, indeed. the pelican think of on security issues is in the wake of this sick -- the cuban missile crisis in which we agree to take armies out of turkey while the russians pulled their missiles out of cuba. it was not a decision that we learned about until years later. the steps taken last week was not taken because of russia. it was a assessment of new technologies in a difficult political and firemen here. i want to make one brief comment on this. i am totally independent in and say whatever i want. these are really my personal views. i think this decision -- that

this decision does not concern russia -- i think that to say that this decision does not concern russia is disingenuous. there are certainly hopes and expectations. the obama administration just made a tough decision to address the iranian missile threat in a different way, and i think it could be an actually more effective system that looks promising. but there certainly work costs internationally of the decision which the obama administration made in reviewing a very significant policy from the past. for moscow, it seems to mean a tougher approach to iran may be a similar opportunity to review a past policy that moscow has been taking. but there are many skeptics that think that the russians will pocket this gift, a freebie, as it has been called

on missile defense questions, and will not be more flexible on iran. i hope that personally the russian government will find it in their interest to be more flexible on the wrong questions on its own merit. and the point that i would make is that if there is not a more flexible position, i think that the domestic political support -- what there is in the united states -- for improving relations with russia will evaporate. and that will be a problem when it comes to the wto a session, and nuclear cooperation agreement, other trees and a number of issues. and maybe more importantly, i would be concerned that the obama administration itself would lose interest in continuing to pursue with the degree of time and political

investment is making, to try to improve ties with russia. i hope very much that we will continue on this track. thanks. >> if you would, russia and before, the soviet union, and the united states always had very intensive talks about security issues. positive, negative, and so on. but now's the time when we can really talk about the economy, trade, things which will be definitely different and useful in our relations. of course the united states and russia are responsible for the peace globally, because we are the major players. but for ordinary people, all of the security issues are not very important. they are important because they want to feel secure.

but both americans and russians will feel secure if we have closer ties in the economy, in business, creating new businesses where we will defend our common economic interests. because while we have -- we have had fights and difficult talks about different issues, and businesses did not want to invest. we are responsible for creating a climate, a real and positive business climate, and in order to let americans invest in the country. we would like russians to be welcomed here in the states. once we have this, then i believe that even security talks will be easier for both administrations. and all the signals that we get

from the american administration are very important for us and we are accepting this and we're paying back, i think, i believe. and it appears that now is the real time to convert our bilateral relations into something completely new, where the economy will be number one, and in global security may be equal, but not the leading question were subject -- or subject. i think the common people if you are a great country -- you are a great country and russia is a great country as well. together these nations could create a lot. i think that if we talk about, as i said, and knowledge-based economy, it means the incorporation along with united

states and we can achieve a lot. you have very close ties with china, russia could be a very interesting partner for businessmen from america. a lot of things that you have mentioned are very important. but what i pursue it might work is between americans and russia's, and in the key 20 -- in the g-20 and other formats, we need to talk about, and business interests. >> could i pick up on one immediate aspect of that and ask you to explain something to us? and that is on the issue of wto membership, which would obviously promote the kind of reforms in russia and diversification of the russian economy that we're talking about. you said in remarks that you well oiled machine in your

government now, the president and prime minister, and there are no contradictions. but i must say that there were some confusion here over different statements about wto membership of the last couple of months. mr. putin talked about joining as a customs union, which the head of the wto said was not possible. president medvedev and others, including yourself, are talking about a more direct route. could you clear that up for us? tell us where that stands. we have said that this could be done fairly quickly and i think that most of us in this room like to see it done very quickly. you should know, is the intent -- it's a that way, we have done a study of russian membership and will not release did because we wanted to release it when the issue became imminent. we would like to help the process. tallis, where it stands, what

you're here in washington this week, would you take initiatives on that and get some meaningful rapid progress so that that very important element of russia's role in the world economy and our relationship between our two countries could take a major step forward? >> good question. [laughter] i am here in washington, d.c. to talk about wto a session -- accession. i'll be talking in a summit organized by the general secretary of the united nations. but being in the states, we want to talk about the session -- accession, but this may not be the right way. we'll met with mr. kerr in st. petersburg last june and talk about possible -- we met with mr. kirk in st. petersburg last

june and talk about possible ways to make it quicker. there is no contradiction among russian government or administration's that we need to be within the wto. that is the strategic aim for russia to be wto members. that is full stop. i want you to understand that there is not even -- no person within the administration of the government would even say something against wto. but the problem is, we have been trying to access for 16 years. while cuba is a member, china is a member of the too, the ukraine and others, and we've passed

enormous -- it was a very long wait. we have achieved a lot. we have a new legislation in my country which i can say, it is very modern. in our custom duties, that were discussed with the european union and the united states and other countries, wto members. and we have just four issues left which we cannot sort out with americans and others, and we cannot finalize our accession procedure, which means that there is not just our ability to negotiate and find a compromise. we believe that it was the administrative position. whether it was georgia or war,

whatever, something always happens which changes the american position, and for many years now, i have received different reports from people who are on the negotiating team that we have four or six months left in order to finalize it. and then we will be in the wto. and it does not happen. and when i met with mr. kerr in st. petersburg, i said that we have been discussing wto acces sion for 16 years, and for 13 years we have been discussing with belarus and others and, the creating of a customs union. -- and kazastan, the

creating of a customs union. people are observing and. we said, ok, if you do not want us to be within the wto as soon as possible, then we will create a customs union which will be enforced in january the first, 2010, and then we will synchronize accession along with the two and other countries. even making that announcement, president and prime minister said that our strategic aim is to become a member of the the boat of. -- of the wto. and then how to achieve this? and when we met in st.

petersburg with mr. kirk, we said we had four issues left. let's find compromises. but if you want us to always do something and the american administration does not change the position, it is not a compromise. it is not the right way to work with russians. if you find something always, a special deal to make china a member of the wto, you have a different approaches to different countries like the ukraine, why don't you speak with us and find a real compromise which would be in the interests of americans and russians? instead, we always heard, first, do something toward the americans, or change your rules, or whatever. and if you think that there is something wrong in our

regulations, we can change them, but at the same regulations exist in european countries -- but if the same regulations existing european countries and you do not raise your voice is, why should we change them? if you want to use different chemicals, because our experts to not believe that is as healthy, or different other issues, and we in back -- and we in moscow had different meetings with my colleagues from the government and several experts, and we had prepared some compromises. it is not completely our position or yours. and we are ready to talk. and we want to accelerate our

accession. the truth is that we can try to access as a customs union only for those issues which are covered in a customs union. it is not a lot. but that finalize our accession, we need to continue bilateral negotiations, and in order to make it easier and maybe frank toward our partners, we decided to create one negotiating team which is led by russian experts who is well-known in the wto. he speaks on behalf of all three countries. whether it is in a customs union or bilateral talks, we want to make it as soon as possible, based on real compromise and understanding

that the wto accession is a priority for each country within customs unions. and it is very easy. when you talked with people who work in drafting the working group's report, they always say that 99% of pins on the -- depends on the american administration. america wants you to be in the wto, it is two or three months time. if not, then there is always an obstacle from the country, agricultural or something else. we believe, because i am responsible for this issue in this government, along with the customs union, that is in my hands, that we can finalize

these issues very quickly, maybe in a few weeks. but i have to confess, and i believe in that, that it can be done only with the help and assistance of the american administration. all of the issues, these four issues that we need to discuss with americans, they would be sorted out immediately and we do not see any possible obstacle to finalize all these talks, and then accession would be completely visible. >> i like to open up to the audience at this point on this topic. we have a lot of other topics that he address. but this issue is at the front of the agenda now. i want to see if anyone in the audience has any questions on

this issue, on the wto and how to move it forward to a rapid conclusion, a positive conclusion that the prime minister -- that the deputy prime minister obviously would like to see. would anyone raise a question on that? please identify yourself at the microphone and then ask a question. >> i am blake marshall and i was wondering if you could give us a summary of the four issues as you see them coming encapsulating the major points. how do you see those -- encryption, medicine for pharmaceuticals, etc.? >> the civil code of my country, this law was adopted just a few years ago.

part four is responsible for that. the lawyers were in the american proposals. -- were against the american proposals. we managed to persuade them, and i talked with members of the duma, and we agree that these changes are possible. so it is like a package, we can then persuade them that they need to vote for the amendments. everything is drafted. the american position is clear. we can accept it if we understand that it will help -- if it creates the wto resolvent -- resolvement. and sanctions and other roles, we agreed that the russian

government can adopt a government on decision which will create a certain rule for exporters, people who export meat to my country, to apply, and cancel the decisions which would be against american meat coming to my country. there is a special proceeding of appeal and how to cancel the legislation which is against the importing from other countries, including the states. and the other issues relating to special equipment, i need to speak more with my colleagues with special security equipment and so far. and then we have state-owned enterprises, which is the most

difficult. many were invented during the soviet time. we need to understand how an american administration would treat russian companies which are controlled by the russian government, or not controlled, somehow helps. we need to talk about this and any position from american experts that can be done on an annual basis, which is not acceptable for us. we need to understand that this system will work as a permanent one, not just on a biannual basis. we need to discuss this with secretary kirk. >> there was a question back in the press row. another one up here?

[inaudible] >> i am from the u.s.-russia business council. i want to thank you for your remarks about the business and the economy and bringing our countries closer together. we very much support that goal and it is something that we want to see accomplished with you. regarding the wto accession, could you clarify in terms of the customs union and russia's on accession, and i understand that there are four other issues. how do you swear that with the customs union and russia's goals along that line, are you saying then that the accession would move forward toward the end of this year with a customs union?

dollars a customs union and the wto accession, they do not contribute to each other. customs union is a very simple formula. we seem and -- we need the same level of customs with these two countries, and we have internal discussions to adopt these duties and protect them. it is an easy foreign -- is not that easy. and now we have agreed with them that most of the duties would be accepted on the same level as russia agreed before. all our talks with the wto members led us to a certain level of customs. the customs within the customs union will be at the same level.

if we start working within the customs union from january the first, and the problem is that kazakhstan and byelorussia negotiated the same level with other russian members. for russia, it is not the problem to access the boat of. it will be more problems for kazakhstan and no rust -- bel erus. for russia, there is no level to access the wto. >> you had discussed that with others at the wto, because you recall, there were statements after the original statement,

throwing doubt on the possibility of your coming in with the customs union as a whole. you're now clarifying that by indicating the customs union itself would have only limited impact. but have you checked that out with the wto people to know that it would conform with debbie to practices and rolls? dollars in june, we meant that we would synchronize and be negotiating with the wto altogether. it was not easy for our partners to get different signals about the wto. how to explain it easier? they received contradictory position -- signals about our position related to the customs union. we wanted them to feel completely comfortable that along with these countries, we

will do everything we agreed on. we will adopt all legislation, and i brought to the states all the legislation to create a customs union. it was not easy, a few thick volumes, and a year ago several presidents agreed that the customs union would be in force here earlier than planned, because the original plan was january 1, 2011. we wanted them to feel comfortable that we're not doing something behind their knowledge. and then when it was announced, we received an immediate signal from the secretary of the wto that it was not possible because

it had never happened. there is no precedent how to accept a customs union as a member. we said, ok, if it is not, we will speak with lawyers. we hired a law firm which gave us advice, saying that the scope of this subject which is ruled by the customs union, in this sphere, we can try to apply as one member. but with everything else, we need to apply as a nation. we said, ok, we're pretty flexible. we can do it in different formats. we only need to do it in no way that our presidents feel comfortable that we're doing in a way that we agree. we went to a negotiating team and they started talking and in

behalf of a customs union, and from different -- three debris countries, russia, byelorussia, and kazakhstan. we announce that we would do that on behalf of the customs union, but they said, no, and it is not, and we are flexible. just let us in. [laughter] >> we wish you the best success ain their effort and we hope tht the customs union does not further delay the entrance into the wto. i like the way but a first when you said you wanted to get accession achieved first and then move on to the customs union. >> we want to do that, but he did not happen.

it was our plan, and we repeatedly said that first the wto accession and in the customs union. but it is not easy to explain people who observe this, saying that you have another -- you have neither the wto or the customs union. whe>> do you think if your first attack -- strategy might still prevail? >> we need to start with a customs union from january 1 and talk to our american partners about the wto accession and understand the framework and time possible to do this. and when i talk here in washington, d.c., we will get a clearer picture. but at the moment, we understand that when i speak with my

experts, they say that in order to find proper solution for all the issues, we need a few months more. >> we appreciate your very candid and detailed response on that. let me shift to another topic. in your initial remarks, which i found fascinating, you talked about the need for the g-820 and the g to coordinate responses -- and the g-8 to coordinate responses in leading the world economy. could you talk a little more about how you see the g-20 and the g-8 involving to help lead the global economic development? how would they help russia in your efforts to reform your own economy in the way that you discussed? what would rush to be seeking from the g-20 and a g-8?

what you expect might emerge from the pittsburgh meeting later this week? talk about the coordination process and how you think the internet that process, and what can rush to bring to it? >> let me start from the g-8. russia became a member of the club a few years ago but when the ministers of finance and the heads of the central banks meet, there is the g-7 format. and when they said -- and they said that when russia -- the same level of economy, we would get the same attention. we will expand and we will be the g-8. along with that, in all the recent years, people are talking about the energy security, the responsibilities there, and

energy charter, and all these issues, climate change and so on. i can tell you because i was there before my colleague to cover. we talked in the g-8 format over critical issues, energy security and climate change. and there were the same questions. at the new talk about global energy security without russia? it is ridiculous. and there was always an explanation why we should wait, what we should do with the russian economy, and so on. we said, ok, maybe it is not the same level of an economy as the american economy or the same as the european economy, but it is bigger than many of the country's which are members of the g-8, like canada, italy --

the russian economy is bigger. if we talk about the figures, it is bigger. and in terms of energy security, the russians can bring a lot to the global development. then we said, ok, it's something wrong with in this format. all they talk about that g-7, talking about the only financial global issues, and then at the same time we invite five more states every year, the outreach format -- china, india, brazil, and mexico, and this year even more. it means that the g-8 cannot cope with all these problems.

our canadian colleagues, they repeated it -- 50-20 is the future -- that he g-20 is the future. we need to shifted from the g-8 to the g-20. we believe the debt with them both -- we believe that within both, russia can bring a lot to the global economy, given its resources, well-educated population -- because we have a very well-educated people. if you travel a lot and compare the levels of education in my country in context, we still

have all the problems but we have very educated people, which can along with national resources that we have in our country, with his intellectual power, we can create something new and give this to the global economy. to the whole civilization. but we also feel that many technologies do not allow us to convert our -- the lack of technology to not allow us to convert our economy. i have said all of this. within the g-20 and the g-8 and any others, we can bring a lot to the table of a global civilization and also understand that our future, the future which will create a new russia,

will the