try to find a way through this comebody working together to try to find a way through this come and a sledges congratulate you on doing that. i think chairman corker you have incredible restraint in not getting on that letter that was sent to the ayatollah. and i think once again i just batchelder back for that and i think once again that's in the tradition of this committee trying to do the best bipartisan foreign policy it can. and to the want to think i want to do is come and it's behind the scenes this agreement that

the administration is working on has had a lot to do with their national laboratory. secretary moniz talked about to his earlier. with two of the three nationals be let into mexico. we can't talk to about all the great things those scientists have done and the contribution they have made but they really on top of these nuclear enterprise issues. i know the story will come out eventually how important it is and i would ask that the "washington post" editorial be put in the record at this point. thank you all for your work they didn't. >> thank you come and i've visited both of those labs with you. certainly they bring an incredible role in our national security as is oak ridge lab in tennessee and cooperation with the on these issues. any other comments? senator kaine, yes sir. >> thank you, mr. chair come and to all committee members rationally supported the beginning of the negotiation

with iran when president obama announced in november 2013 and really viewed as the fruition of their efforts. i was not innocent when they sanction regime were passed. so to those of you who were, the economic realities of that regime opened up an opportunity at our president did what we would want the president did you come to seek a diplomatic antidote very difficult question. hal sutton number of questions about the friend of the deal that was announced on april 2 not much in a framework i feel positively about. the rollback enriched uranium type of from 10,000 kilograms and 300 is massive and the agreement of iran a ran a lease in the framework to produce the indie iaea's additional protocol for inspection also significant. i am pro-diplomacy and i see positive and favorite but i have been strongly pro-the need for congressional approval. there's been some suggestion defeating congress needs to

approve is you are anti-diplomacy. that's pretty kids. there's been some suggestion if you think congress needs to prove this come you are pro-war. that's offensive. we have a role under article ii and i think congressional approval in this instance under the framework that is now before us businesses are come helpful and what the american public demands and deserves. it's necessary because at the core then so congress will be involved. it's awful because since congress will be involved the only question is will that involvement helpful and orderly or will it be under free for all rules? much better for us much better for the administration, for the p5+1, much better for the iran were asking to make concessions, big concessions for them to the process that is orderly and constructive. and finally it's something. in public, our role, they really deserve it. i've been talking to virginians

about this for many months and i've seen some polling that seems kind of odd if you look at it but it does make sense that the american public just as we do is deeply concerned about an iranian nuclear weapons program. the american public just as we are would come of it hopes will find a diplomatic end to the problem. they prefer diplomacy over work just like we all do. the american public is deeply skeptical just like we are about iran's intentions. we'll iran comply with an agreement? the american public overwhelmingly wants congress to approve the deal rather than the president just to announce the deal. focus on that would for a minute. light in my constituents and you you would like you to have to be approved by congress with it's not out of disrespect for the president. it's not because they love congress. let me share what you think about congress. it's not exactly great. they are so concerned about the magnitude of this deal they will

feel more comfortable if both the executive and the legislature take a look and say this is in the best interest of the nation. this is why people get a second opinion if they hear from a doctor something they don't like. they know this has been. able to more comfortable if it's about the executive and the legislature redoing it or that's what i am strong support of this and want to thank you, mr. chair, although colleagues and the white house for weighing in at the in so we can find a path forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to you and the ranking member as well as to the white house for bringing i think this incredibly productive compromise before us today. i've been of like mind with senator boxer. i have believed that this has been a largely unnecessary endeavor in that the legislation that we're debating today physically reserved for congress any power that we don't already have. we had the ability for this

debate to be able to review this agreement once it cemented congress and to be able to take way from the president the power to waive sanctions. and after the passage of this bill we still have that power. all along my concern has simply been whether we are engaging in an effort that's going to make it less likely rather than more likely that we're going to get a deal to review. i reserve the right to be able to weigh in on that agreement. i just want to make sure we're not taking any steps that lessen the chances that we will be able to conduct that oversight when the time is appropriate. and i would just reiterate what we've heard today from the administration. i think we've heard very clearly that the changes that have been made over the past 20 for-48 hours essentially make this legislation benign as it relates to the negotiation. that there is a belief that with these changes that shortened timeframe, the removal of the terrorist certification, that

this legislation, the passage of it is not going to affect the negotiations or the building for us as a body to see that final agreement. i'm happy to support it. my final comment is just this one and it builds frankly off a comment from senator kaine. i do worry about a double standard of oversight. in this congress. i don't worry about it when it comes to senator kaine agency was right at the beginning saying we should oversee the president's proposed military action in the middle east. but we have a constitutional duty to declare war and we have been in this committee now for about four months and haven't taken any progress to fulfill what is our constitutional obligation to oversee war. i would argue and deferential position to senator johnson we don't have a constitutional obligation. we frankly don't have the ability to waiting until after

we see a final agreement. and so i just don't want to be in a situation where we had a higher standard of oversight on diplomacy than we have for war. and so i'm glad to support this compromise moving forward. i think it will provide for a useful framework for the review of this agreement should intervene to but i want to make sure that this committee moving forward is just as vigorous in its oversight over warmaking powers as it is over diplomacy. to pose a. i don't think this is an attack on diplomacy but i'm hopeful that we will show some consistency in the weeks and months to come. >> thank you. i do want to just come i have to say this. i apologize not i think the reason the administration in the last few hours has chosen a path that they are not taking is a number of senators that they realized going to support this legislation. so anyway, i have 180-degree

different view of what's happened over the last couple of hours but i appreciate your comments. senator barton. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and again, can't praise you enough for the way that you are conducting this committee. i think this is really in the best tradition of the senate foreign relations committee in the way that people might understand it to be ma which oftentimes it is not. and i thank you, senator cardin, for your excellent work in helping to create a bridge that has brought us to this moment. i also want to thank senator menendez and senator kaine for their work in ensuring that there would be a protection of congressional prerogatives, especially in an area where the sanctions were actually a congressional idea. it originated here and to a very

large extent that is why the iranians have come to the table. is altogether fitting and appropriate that we are at this moment and there is going to be an assertion of this congressional prerogatives to oversee such an important matter. so we congratulate all of you here by the way every member of the committee who participated in this process. there is no more important subject for the congress to have to deal with. the iaea is perhaps the least well known, most important institution on the planet. that is what we are going to be debating over the next four or five months, a role that the iaea can play in avoiding a traumatic exclamation -- exclamation -- escalation of nuclear weapons proliferation in the middle east that we've avoided for 70 years. so it's going to be critical for

the senate, for the house to be able to determine the adequacy of the inspections regime. the funding made available to ensure that the iaea can be the policeman on the beat the protector i against the compromise of civilian nuclear program that in the wrong hands can turn into a nuclear bomb factory. that's what this is all about. that's why the israelis are looking at this so closely. it is why the saudis, egyptians the turks are all looking at this one issue so closely. because if we get it wrong it is going to lead to the escalation that we have avoided over all of these decades. and so this is a big moment and i think this meeting is handled this issue very responsibly. and i think a certain extent

listening to expert opinion, i think there's kind of a surprise visit people have had with regard to the specificity in the agreement which sender to carry and senator money is secretary moniz, and president obama has brought back come and they should give us some hope that an agreement can be reached at accomplishes all of those goals. but it's also appropriate for this committee, for the senate, to advise and consent, to have a role in conducting hearings entering the evidence and then making a decision. because a lot of the rest of the history of the 21st century is going to actually ride on how this agreement is, in fact, written and enforced. and so i keep coming back to thank you for the way in which

you're conducting it. it's the appropriate role for this committee and for the senate, and i can't praise senator kaine and intense cardin and you, mr. chairman, for the incredible work you've done. and i yield back spent thank you. either anymore opening comments? singh not i would entertain entertain a motion that we consider the manager's amendment by roll call vote. is there a second? >> mr. chairman? attribute of a time like to make a comp with regard to it we incorporate in the manager's amendment. >> actually i think even go ahead and do that now. that would be fine. thank you. thank you for involvement in this and making this bill better as it is today. >> i just want to thank chairman corker in ranking member cardin for the cooperation today. as many of you will remember for five years i've worked to see to it that the 44 living americans who were hostages in iran in 1979 are compensated for the loss and the type you

remember when we negotiated the algerian accords to release those people at the time it was 52 living people. we negotiate away the ability to get compensation from the iranian government. i have a bill what you offered as an amendment which i will withdraw for reasons that i understand that will allow us to collect compensation from the iranian sanctions money which is available and accessible to compensate each one of those remaining 44 citizens who are still alive today. that chairman and ranking member asked me to withdraw the amendment because it's not appropriate given the nature of the framework of the deal and i agree with that but you are both gracious enough to include in the manager's amendment that i appreciate that very much and appreciate chairman corker's willingness to you at a time in the near future to allow the legislation to can be forced the committee. we all those records everything. ever captured and tortured and beaten for 444 days. they are the only american civilians advocate in captivity connecticut some sort of compensation from their captors and tormentors and i want to see that happens but want to thank you've recommended until now

that you put that in a manager's amendment come and i withdraw my father and. >> thank you and thank you for your steadfast support of these families everything they've gone through. is there any member that would like to offer an amendment to the managers package? >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to call up anonymity the manager's amendment. this resource the language from the underlying they spill on the terrorism certification. simple and straightforward, it just reestablishes the requirement that the president certify iran has a direct and supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the united states old united states person anywhere in the world. this was in the original piece of legislation. it is the bill that had significant bipartisan support, bipartisan cosponsorship. iran has been designated by the united states as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. i think it's critical for the president to make this certification to go into the american people.

we are serious about our national security. i think it's important to me restate that that we will not tolerate terrorism against our nation spent thank you. if i could just respond first of i want to thank the senator for the way he conducted himself and certainly raising this issue. i just would like the artist in the world to know this was a request by senator menendez actually. bisbee initially put in the do. it's difficult for me to understand why certification like this wouldn't easily be made handedly. with more information about terrorist and is now that we've ever had before and my guess is that if iran attended a terrorist act against an american and not only would have sanctions but likely missiles and bombs. i don't know why this could not be agreed to but it was true the administration did not want to other issues not relevant to nuclear do. i agreed to that and what i support your amendment and support that they spill as it was before, i think the senator knows that i will oppose it and

i think i understand this creates problems for the balance that we have today with the director never. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me explain, first of all i agree with the chairman pitt i know to sponsor this amendment is well and didn't get we all want to see iran and its terrorism influence in many regions of the world that are very very troubling to world stability. so it's a major continuing problem. i agree completely with the intent of this amendment. i disagree with the chairman know about the impact of this amendment. this amendment would have the unintended consequence of i think defeating any possibility for diplomacy but let me explain why. the president would not be able to make this certification. because he could not make the certification through the and expensive process for sanctions against iran and, therefore, it

would be totally contrary to what is being negotiated today in regards to nuclear nonproliferation obligations other than related to what they would do to give up their nuclear weapons in regards to sanctions imposed because they violated their nuclear proliferation obligations. that are separate sanctions in regards to terrorism, ballistic missiles and human rights come and the manager's amendment makes it clear that nothing in the negotiations affected does sanction regimes. so we had a tool in place but it's not the sanctions that were imposed in the cards to the nuclear proliferation discussions. so, therefore, if this became a part of the bill it would be very likely, it would very likely be used as a reason to say that diplomacy cannot work. a president can make the certifications, can't give the relief that is being negotiated at the u.s. would be blamed for the end of negotiations putting

out and actually in a stronger position internationally and are today. i know that's not senator barrasso's intent but i think that's the consequences. let me go point out senator menendez in the original bill included very strong report language on the terrorism activities of iran that must be submitted to congress on a periodic basis. that language is not only include in the manager's amendment but strengthens in a manager's amendment. would also include other language that says that the president must say that all actions including an international for a being taken by the united states to stop counter can't condemn attacks by iran to directly or indirectly carry out acts of terrorism against the united states and u.s. persons, the impact of national security of the united states and the safety of american citizens as a result of any iranian actions reported under this paragraph, and an additional paragraph was added

come and assessment of whether violations of international recognize human rights innovative change can increased or decreased compared to the part 180 day time. these reported every six months of it is a very strong provision in regards to keeping congress informed as to these types of the gettysburg and, of course we always have the right to take action. i just would urge my colleagues to recognize that certification provisions could very well compromise the ability of the united states to continue his negotiations were as this manager's amendment is a very strong on the terrorism issue. >> senator menendez. >> very briefly. let me say i have no doubt that iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism. not because i said that because the state department says it. so that israel. having said that, my reason for seeking to include it was concerns that nonnuclear

sanctions would be waived as it relates to terrorism and other elements. indeed other language that makes it clear that none of those other sanctions will be waived as a result of any nuclear deal i certainly support the bill as it presently stands and i will continue to pursue iran as it relates to its state sponsor of terrorism in other venues but i think it is so important having that clear now, that's not going to be waived under any set of circumstances to have this type of process for the senate to review any potential deal at the end of the day that i don't think that this is an impediment to our goal of both having a review process and making sure that iran continues to suffer the consequences for being a state sponsor of terrorism. >> mr. chairman, i would speak in favor of a brass a minute. we know that iran has targeted and killed americans.

i would just point out and after about a week ago by sectors shows and kissinger in "the wall street journal" dinners statements with a recent addition to yemen as a battlefield, iraq -- strategic waterways in a circle's arch rival saudi arabia and american allies and endless loop restraint is linked to nuclear restraint and agreement freeing iran from sanctions risk empowering iran's hegemonic tendencies. efforts, excuse me. absent the link between nuclear and political restraint under traditional allies will conclude the u.s. has traded it for nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to iranian hegemony. i think it's of what we have is being here as former secretaries have pointed out. >> thank you very much. i've spent a lot time talking to segregate kissinger. like many others we have that ability and i couldn't agree more with the comments that were in the op-ed. that's why the language at senator menendez has mentioned clears that up absolutely makes

it known to all that we in no way, no way as part of the agreement that we will discuss later if we pass this legislation can in no way will the sanctions be removed. and i might add to the extent we have information that will be much or available to us from an intelligence standpoint as to what's happened, we have the to of all the sanctions that were talking about today to even add to that. but i know the senator would like to have a vote. if there's no objection, then you want to speak to anymore? let's have a roll call vote. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report. >> and again i thank you so much for the way give worked on this and your ability to raise the issue again. i very much appreciate that.

so is my understanding and if there are no other amendments, are there any other amendments? i think we've had a notion in the second to move to the managers package which we will now vote on and if the clerk would please call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report. are there any other amendments now to the base legislation that has been amended to the managers package? is there in motion that we move ahead with approving the bill as amended-managers package? if they moved and seconded. if the clerk the question that the motion to approve s. 615 the iran nuclear act of 2015 as amended. the clerk would call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] >> thank you. the clerk will report. satellite. >> the ayes have it obviously that complete count committees disappeared i ask unanimous consent is that the authors to make technical and conforming changes. without objection to order. and with that without objection the committee of stands adjourned. thank you all. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> regarding the bill as passed at the end of this committee session white house press secretary josh barnett sensed the president would be willing to support this compromise a version as it now stands but he added it major changes could make it unacceptable to the president as it makes its way through congress. republican presidential hopefuls nearly 20 of them are in new hampshire this weekend to address a gop leadership summit. florida center marco rubio tweeting this out and just wrapped up a meeting with the union later editorial board in manchester, new hampshire. he will be addressing the summit tonight at 7:40 p.m. eastern. live coverage on c-span.

meanwhile, jeb bush started the day at the first republican some event in manchester speaking at politics and eggs at saint anselm college be we speak at the some this afternoon at 4:30 p.m. at of also be live on c-span. kentucky center rand paul will be there tomorrow. today he was still in washington, d.c. and weed out that he had a great monument run today in his live free or die t-shirt come getting pumped up for his visit to new hampshire tomorrow. again at the center center rand paul. you live coverage of his remarks to more on c-span2 of the senators ted cruz in lindsey graham along with governor scott walker and john kasich former arkansas governor mike huckabee will be on the program. live coverage tomorrow morning at 10 eastern. >> ponce de leon may or may not have been searching with a

fountain of eternal youth. a lot of people have said that he was out for additional property for the king of spain and colonization and gold which is decidedly true. we do know that once he came ashore after searching for good harbor, took on water and wood. this area presents one of the few freshwater springs in the area about 30 degrees eight minutes. and is also the location of the 1565 for settlement of saint augustine 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 55 years before the pilgrims landed on rock. >> the hotel ponce de leon was built by henry morrison flagler. flagger is a man who is very little known outside of the state of florida, but he was one of the wealthiest men in

america. essentially have been a cofounder of the standard oil company with john d. rockefeller. he was admitted always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. and as it turned out florida was it. he realized that he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. so clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary spent watch all of our events of saint augustine saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunny afternoon at two on american history to be on c-span3. >> the chinese vice minister of finance is in washington, d.c. today. he will be at the atlantic council to discuss the impact of

this countries economy on the asia-pacific region and the u.s. live coverage in about 30 minutes. in the meantime i look at this morning's "washington journal." >> host: joining us at the table our two reporters from the center for public integrity, chris young and erin quinn. thank you both for being here. first time guests, both of you. the topic here is what the fda does and doesn't really know about what's in your food and have written a piece at the center for public integrity about all of this come quite a lengthy peter we learned a lot in these next 45 minutes or so but wanted to start with a photo from this come a very tragic story. here's a boy named miles who is 11 years old he suffered a fatal allergic reaction after he ate basically a turkey burger. erin quinn come explain this story. what happened translate miles

was an 11 year boy he lived in california. the story is about how he was meeting a turkey burger, it has been agreed and he called micro-protein which is a neat alternative. and micro-protein is a food additive. he suffered an allergic reaction. he had had an allergy to mold and his mother was unaware i guess what the ingredients were in the turkey burger. because she says it was mislabeled and he began to suffer an allergic reaction. he couldn't breathe and he eventually died of anaphylactic shock and after he ate the burger. >> host: so how did it actually happen than in the context of your piece on what we are talking about? >> guest: micro-protein which was ingredient that the family is saying led to their son's death is a food additive that a

company declared was safe several years ago and it's been on the market for a while. they did submit a declaration of safety to the food and drug administration. the food and drug administration okayed it but did not issue an escher a formal approval because of how the process works. says it sent until he had again the mother was unaware i guess i want i guess what really was the food, what usually made up of. >> host: chris young broaden this out. what is the fda's responsibility for what are the responsible for when it comes to ensuring food safety? >> guest: most people assume the fda is making sure that every food ingredient that goes into our food is safe. but the fact is that that's actually not true. the bottom line is that the fda

often has no idea what ingredients food companies are adding to our food. it's not that these countries are doing anything illegal or there is a loophole in a 57 year-old law that actually makes this possible post but what does this mean for all of us? what should we be thinking? >> guest: it means we really are sort of a lot of information about a safer food supply is. there are an estimated 1000 come and that's a conservative estimate, 1000 ingredients that are in our food that we the public does not know exists and even the fda doesn't know exists house of representatives put the phone numbers on the bottom of this the bottom of the screen far distant chris young and erin quinn for the center for public integrity writing about food quality issues. we will be happy to take your calls or questions and comments in the next couple of minutes. want to put some context out there. this is from your piece to give eyed in the past five decades a

number of food additives have skyrocketed from about 800 to more than 10,000. they are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast service to energy bars and carbonated drink. meanwhile, the fda food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl. as recent ingredient manufacturers have increasingly turned to the loophole as a quick road to market. so this thread for come explain why that is. >> guest: gras are generally recognized as states especially process for which food additives can make it to the market. that came about in 1958 when the first law was passed to regulate food additives. the law set up basically two paths to market. the company wishing to market and ingredient could go through a full food additive review process through the fda. their ingredient would be submitted to extensive testing and review for safety.

and the fda would help to issue a formal approval and the fda would stand behind that approval and say we recognize it as safe. with the gras has come and it was set up by congress for companies to bring to market ingredients that were commonly used and, obviously, safety was meant for the fda cannot be bogged down to put things like olive oil or vinegar or table salt. but we found that copies today use of that loophole far more often than going through the full food additive review process. they can determine something is generally recognized as safe on their own with their own scientists or hired scientists and consultants and make a declaration, if they decide whether or not to notify the fda of that safety decision. but the fda but they have a chance to agree with the company but they do not make a formal approval of anything.

so the fda doesn't really stand behind the company's decision to it's completely up to the company aspect chris young, tell us more. >> guest: what she was just saying about the idea that the fda doesn't stand by these decisions, starting in 1997 the fda proposed rules which basically laid out groundwork or guidelines for industry on what they can do if they wanted to seek the fda's so-called approval. we won't comment ethicacy not actually approving or from the state of these ingredients. a company can determine on their own that their ingredients they generally recognized as a pic once they do that whether they have an expert panel of consultants that can from that and say they are safe they can go to market. they can also decide to go to the fda and submit the review to the fda and say we want you to review it. and the fda they don't affirm

the safety of that. what they say, they said that what's called a no questions later. what that means is they are not disagreeing with the company's determination that this is generally recognized as safe but the responsibility is still on the company to be responsible for the safety of that ingredient and for its use house of representatives before we get to calls erin quinn this gras system, who oversees that input is there any oversight from any strong oversight over that system if they companies can hire their own scientists? >> guest: indicates that companies who hire their own scientists to declare something as safe come if they do not notify the fda, then there is no real oversight by any regulators because of that determination is just private with the company. if they do notify it to the fda the fda does ask tough questions about those and it is a little

bit of oversight but again there is no formal approval really house of representatives has congress had anything to say about this? >> guest: there is at least one legislator rosa delauro yo who expressed her frustration in a statement two is basically saying that she is upset the fda has not acted on recommendations that the government accountability office had made five years ago in a report where they basically acknowledged the gao report said the fda not doing enough to ensure the safety of the food supply because largely because a lot of these safety determinations are being made without ever getting to the fda and without the fda even knowing these ingredients exists house of representatives let's get the viewersview was involved in the program for chris young and erin quinn were both from the center for public integrity. chris is calling for someone. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

this is a really interesting subject to me for some time not only the food but the drugs that the fda fails to test adequately. i was unaware of this little you were talking about but that makes sense to me. what i really wanted to talk about was a related subject, which was a human growth hormone has been added to milk products in this country. there was a story on fox news some years ago or they're trying to be a story on fox news, the reporters who were doing the story were stymied by the network, they were forced to rewrite the story about 80 times before they were actually fired. they went to court and sue to fox news over this to the human growth hormone in milk causing cancer. they went to court. they sued fox news and what seemed to me it should be an open and shut case. they actually lost the case and here's the job dropper. is that the judge ruled that not

only fox news but no network and his company or corporation is obligated to tell the public the truth. thanks. have a good day post any thoughts from either of you? >> guest: what he's been getting at, i mean people are really concerned now it is about transparency. this issue with this gras system is important right now because we, consumers want to know what's in their food. a lot of people think that's relatively little to ask. you see this a lot with issues around the debate of people wanting to labeling for genetically modified organisms. so it's an issue that's basically across the country people just want to know what's been different and i think people expect that house of representatives there's a tweak to that effect erin quinn.

the bottom line is we do not know what we eat drink or breathe. take us back to the case of the young boy who died. he basically eight f. understand what a turkey burger or his mother bought for it after looking out in california. to the point of people knowing what's in your food could somebody like this or someone else like us find out when they're at a sporting event find out exactly what they are ingesting? >> guest: while all these increased must be on food labels and a lot of these ingredients are so new that you consumers they're completely unfamiliar ingredients and it might not really realize what that ingredient could be actually composed of and i believe that that was what the issue was in that case. >> guest: and the company denies the claims that the family makes in their lawsuit that was filed. the company says that their product or that ingredient is

safe. and that the fda come back in 2002 have essentially agreed to that house of representatives let's hear from john in florida. a republican. >> caller: good morning. my concerns are with the farmers, a lot of the farmers i speak to you throughout the country, they are losing their farms because with the natural gas industry is really taking off today, and some of the land is starting to get polluted. but my most concern is that if the farmers keep losing their farms into united states and we depend on other sources of food through other countries, i think that's my biggest worry. i just want to know how do you do if we have to depend on other countries like we depend on oil what's our future for the food that we have that's my question to you is what direction of the going to go at and how they can stop this? >> guest: that is an

interesting point, and has we look at a lot of the notifications that companies in a to the fda about the ingredients that they have declared safe and want to bring to market it, we took a look at all the notifications that are available, and that goes back to 1998. we did see in our data that are a lot more international companies that are getting involved in a market here and bringing additives here are typically processed foods. they do it to go through the same exact processes as a domestic company but it's something that we noticed. >> guest: just to expand on that a little bit more. a lot of these companies that are coming up with these ingredients are from all over the world. so what these companies also, these are, we're going to get interesting at what these companies are. these are often accompanies that are supplying ingredients to

companies and major companies that are household names like you're general mills, you're your craft, your catalog. the companies that are coming up with these ingredients are not as much of a household name as the companies they are supplying them to house of representatives we have carol on the line from ohio. >> caller: yes hello good morning. my comment is, i won't ask the question but my comment is come i'm a child of the '50s and i remember when food tasted like food. now you have food companies basically plastics and use all kinds of come it's just awful. children of today don't even have a clue as to what food, real food taste like the it's very upsetting because you can goes that is banned in the country but yet we put in our bread and baked products. potassium bromide.

you have hydrolyzed soy protein masking them amnesty, a lot of people are concerned about msg so then ask that as hydrolyzed soy protein. this is awful. because the companies are profiting and we're getting some of the worst things to put in our bodies that should be nutritious to what we need for our bodies to be healthy but yet people are so desensitized to the chemicals in the food come if you stop eating a certain food and then you begin to beat it again you actually taste the chemicals once you've desensitized your body to those horrible ingredients that in our food house but thanks for calling, care. anything you want to react to their? >> guest: she mentioned expansion of them of ingredients in a food and that is something that was brought to our attention because when this law

was passed regulating food additives, there were only 800 food additives that were added to the food supply prevented a consumer groups and others estimate that there are more than 10,000 ingredients that are added. so there's really been an expansion of processed foods as people's lifestyles change. so that's why the additives are making over to the market because they are typically found in the packaged goods we see in the supermarket house of representatives chris young, back to a tweak, how could anyone come or how would anyone have done this exact protein would react with a specific mold allergy into child? what should the label that said? >> guest: so the family believes in their lawsuit that it should have been labeled as mold, as in boldface in greeting. something that's as mold. but there was nothing on the package that said that. the company doesn't think that it was required, that they should have to do that. but the family in their lawsuit

excessive expected to be on there because their son, like their status have an allergy to mold, then you can be able to identify that as a potentially harmful husband dana calling from washington. >> caller: good morning. actually it's kind of a two-part question. i haven't read the article yet but do the authors have any clue or is the information about how many people have actually died or been injured from unknown food additives that have been put into the food supply? and secondarily, how would we even know whether, what's being added because it's golden quote now required at this point to states on the label. whether that's harming as at all because unless you're like the young man who died funding anaphylactic shock, most of it would probably be long-term

effects. i will drop off-line and listen to the edge. thank you. >> host: thanks. >> guest: he's actually right that a lot of additives can be concerned with poverty more but this did more with long-term thinkthinker have agreed to bring up with one immediate effects they might be we could sit in the case of caffeinated alcoholic beverages become something that the fda expressed their concerns about as energy drinks company started to put alcohol in their beverages. there were incidents of college students they would consume too much of them and end up in hospitals or there was a case we wrote about where a pointed end up a dying because of events that transpired after drinking of types of beverages. but he does bring up a good point which is that the bank is concerned that critics have with this system is that these food additives could have long-term effects that we just don't know about because nobody can really track the data over time to see

how consumption of these things are affecting people. >> guest: nobody can actually find out that one thing these countries are supposed to be when they're coming out and making their safety determinations is the cumulative exposure that people having to these ingredients. and we don't know what these countries are making these determinations in secret, there is a way of being able to calculate the relative exposure. so let's take an example like imagine you're at your breakfast table and you, a company has determined that a particular ingredient is safe for a certain dose to use in a muffin. they did that determination in secret, never told the fda. another company made a similar determination on the same ingredient for breakfast cereal. and a third company did the same for the same ingredient in

juices. each of those companies might have made that determination at these are safe for that specific use that be the tournament, but they have no idea what these other companies are doing. so even some of the industry consultant that we talked to said we do have concerns about that. the fact that we don't know what other companies are doing makes it hard for us to track this over time. >> host: you have in your piece this section titled come it isn't the wild west the the fda has publicly acknowledged the gras shortcomings but we do not have information to about 20 of these tentacles. meanwhile, industry scientists and lawyers contend safety concerns are overblown and that major reform designed to increase government oversight would cripple the resources at the fda and stifle innovation. it is the wild west out there. toxicologist industry consultant we have the safest food supply in the world. but it gets to the point about

the fda resources. remind us of how the fda is structured right now how big is it can what kind of resources might they have to devote to this type of issue just let the fda regulate 8% of the nation's food supply but to do a pretty tight resource department -- 80%. that tight resources as told to us by consumer groups and even decades after quinnipiac is deciding where to devote their resources they are going to focus on more pressing issues like food borne illness or contaminants in food like industry outbreak pick something that you do with immediately. and things like this that are much more long-term problem sort of take a backseat to that because they are focused on what is happening in. >> host: so there's a tweak out there that says simply how are you going to test every food? is that even reasonable to think that could happen? >> guest: that's one argument that industry makes in support

of the way the system works right now. they basically say that the fbi if it was required to all these companies go to the fda for a full review we would have no new food additives. that basically the system would be stalled so much that food innovation which is not happen. .. ingredients are safe? and we really need all of these ingredients? host: a democrat from riverside california. hi, there. caller: hi, i wanted to bring up a few things. -- is in a lot of things. it is a preservative. it can cause cancer. and when it is mixed with citric acid, and a lot of sodas popular want, it can cause

leukemia. and the phosphoric acid, it is like a negative. so it oil and high fructose corn syruhich in th i >> caller: i happened to look at in my kitchen on the top of the harmful list of foods, and i -- then i happened to get into some of my cosmetics. i found out that some of the ingredients in sun block can actually cause damage to your cells, and then the makeup -- [laughter] things like that they have bad chemicals that you absorb. and on the generic meds, 80% of them don't have to be tested the original product doesn't have to be tested and you can't sue them either if something goes wrong. and one last thing, the vets committing suicide, they have an

antidepressant that makes you prone to violence and rage. so somebody's being paid off, obviously. >> host: there's a lot there from gloria. >> guest: sure. there are advocacy groups that are working to promote consumer right to know about a lot of consumer products. the center for science and the public interest and environmental working group do a good job of tracking what food add tufs they have concerns about -- additives they have concerns about and what products you can find them in. there's a few substances that chris and i took a look at that these groups have pointed out are considered carcinogens that other government agencies like the national institutes of health or even other countries, and those do sometimes make it into our food. >> guest: and the caller made an interesting point about lawsuits. the one point that industry consultants that we talked to said over and over again was

that why would they add ingredients to our food if they knew they were unsafe, because these companies would open themselves up to a slew of lawsuits. but the counterargument to that is that it's hard for people to be able to point to a specific ingredient and say this caused me harm and therefore, i'm going to sue. as you know and viewers know, a lot of these food labels iningredient labels had sometimes dozens of ingredients on them. so to be able to point out one is really hard, especially a lot of them we don't even know about. >> host: joe, you're on with chris young and erin quinn of the center for public integrity. >> caller: hello? >> host: hi, joe. joe, you there? >> caller: my question is what

all these ingredients they're putting in here, and then you come up with this grass thing, and the companies can basically approve anything they want to put in there why do we even need the fda? why don't we just shut 'em down because you can do whatever the hell you want to the food. we don't need the fda anymore. >> host: perspective from yao on the fda -- from joe on the fda. >> guest: sure. companies will say they insure the safety of their food and they are very careful about all their testing they make sure they cover all their bases before they put something in the food x that may be true. they may do all that work. but consumer groups and ore critics of the system -- other critics of the system say if there is no agency that is overseeing everything and can say for certain this is everything in our food, there is no way to track how humans are

consuming that and what types of almost effects there could be after people consume that. >> host: chris young, you have a section in the piece about trans fats. tell us why it's important. >> guest: sure. trans fats is an example of an ingreed end that public -- ingredient that public health officials have known for a long time as being harmful and causing a variety of health issues for people. you know, obviously trans fats have been used in -- >> chairman of the atlanta council, we welcome one and all and thank you particularly this afternoon for joining us to hear china's vice minister of fitness zhu guangyao speak about his country's vision for a more prosperous asia-pacific region. mr. vice minister, we're delighted and honored to have you here. thank you so much for being with us. this event is part of the

council's project on shaping the asia-pacific future. led by our scowcroft center's nonresident senior fellow olinwethington at the u.s. treasury department and former special envoy on china. this project is currently on phase one which focuses on the economic and financial architecture in the region. vice minister zhu's meeting to washington comes at a critical time as new regional initiatives supported by china such as the asian infrastructure investment bank the new development bank and the silk road initiative are showing strong momentum. and the effectiveness of existing multilateral financial institutions are under increasing scrutiny. on a broader scale, china is playing a larger role in shaping

the global economic order and is calling for adjustments in the existing economic and financial architecture. the rmb's internationalization continues to expand into foreign markets is rising. at the same time many economic forecasts point to the prospect of an economic slowdown in the asia-pacific region including in china where efforts to strengthen the economy to a new normal face challenges. we are undoubtedly facing a transformational period in asia where there are great opportunities to pursue common interests, but also serious potential risks of fragmentation in the finance, monetary and trade architecture. we are delighted to have vice minister zhu with us today to provide us his perspective on these very important developments the role new financial institutions will play and china's long-term vision for economic growth in asia.

vice president zhu was appointed to his current position in may 2010 following a very distinguished career at the ministry of finance including as china's executive director at the world bank director general of the international department and assistant minister. he serves the critical function of china's g20 finance deputy and also is deeply involved in the u.s./china strategic and economic dialogue. these roles will be particularly critical as china prepares to host the g20 heads of state summit in 2016. so without further ado, i'd like now to invite vice minister zhu to the stage for his remarks after which we'll continue with a q&a session moderated by olin. vice minister zhu, the time is now yours. [applause] >> thank you very much, ambassador huntsman and i

particularly thank you for your contribution to promote friendship between china and the united states. i know how many days you've been in beijing and washington to baas our relations -- to boost our relations. we particularly thank you very very much. and here i'm so happy to see many old friends. o, many -- so i really appreciate this opportunity and thank you for your -- oh, professor -- [inaudible] al here, and your contribution to great relations between u.s. and china. and today i am really honored to be here at the atlantic council to talk about u.s./china

relationship across atlantic -- pacific ocean. and a real fact to remind us to think about in atlantic council to talk about relations between our two countries across pacific ocean. and this indeed, reflects the change and reflects the new global situation. but we fully understood that one factor is no change. united states with more than 300 million people, you have two oceans, atlantic ocean and the pacific ocean. and china with 1.3 billion people our country is facing pacific ocean. just as the president xi jinping emphasized to president obama,

pacific ocean is broad enough to to accommodate our two cups china and the united states. at this time i also recall in 19 72 the time when president nixon land at beijing airport. he said to the chinese premier i shake hands with you closing the pacific ocean. that's history since 1972. our relationship must be strengthened.

the u.s. has more than $100 billion investment money in china, china hold about $1.2 trillion u.s. department. but our relations so close, interconnected relations. both of china and united states hope -- [inaudible] because it so close connection between our two countries. i know although we have very many common ground and that's particularly we are all focused on peace and development.

this is very important for our continue develop our relations. however, i also understand the difference the history, the culture background and here as the chinese -- u.s. american sometimes is not very patient to listen to others speak a long time. so i guarantee you and particularly media friends my speech is no longer than 20 minutes. i must finish before 3:30. as ambassador said, we have more time to discussion. i will address to you two points. one is regarding international financial architecture. second one is regarding how were

working together, chinese and americans, to prepare september event for our presidents' meeting. we really thought opportunity, and successful meeting and good result not only impact our two countries, but also to the world. so for international finance architecture here, many experts in the room. and not just old friends. -- in charge of chinese relation with -- [inaudible] so i just use this opportunity to say china is a key member of imf, world bank.

because until today bretton woods system is still reflect by the key agencies. umf and world bank -- imf and world bank. this established just before world war ii in 1944. july 1944. and 70 years to show this bretton woods system is continual -- china is involved in the system in the early 1980s after china opening up and reform process begin. so today china is very important member of imf world bank.

and -- as important shareholder of world bank and imf those agencies is also our agencies. we just make -- to the highest capacity of agencies. and also with push the reform of these agencies toen hasn't the efficiency -- to enhance the efficiency. countries can reflect fairly those agencies, reflect a change of global economic structure and thus insure those institutions can play efficient city law to promote global stability and promote global economic development. and i just want to quickly

recall during the crisis china china -- bilateral borrowing program. gave financial help to imf. and we also -- [inaudible] the project in china so far i believe former director of world bank china department here, you can identify -- not only that since -- [inaudible] china become donation country. now we can say 15 16, 17,

china's contribution to the world bank is increased amount. economic development although china has domestic poverty needs to be solved, but we understand how our international responsibility. we increased our contribution to the world bank group particularly ida. and now this one, we hope, with our adherence for poverty reduction corrupt to the global poverty reduction program not only to reduce poverty situation in china, but also contribute to global poverty reduction -- [inaudible] with the global system.

and we can proud to say china is actually participate in the current international financial system. also we made big contribution to current financial -- international financial system. now we just follow ambassador huntsman just said about china's proposal for asian infrastructure. chinese president xi made the proposal. it's based on real demand for infrastructure in china. according to -- [inaudible] figure the next ten years eight trillion gap in asia, that's

between money supply and real demand. so big gap. we really hope adb, world bank more important law increase lending leverage and give more support to infrastructure development in asia. we take responsibility, give our -- [inaudible] particularly to asian members. now it's time we establish aib. president xi jinping made very clear when he met with delegate in beijing to sign mou for establishment of aib. president xi jinping emphasized three points. i strongly believe these three points for china's proposal to

establish aib. fortunately, president xi jinping emphasize we must join with the challenge to promote growth and we have strong solidarity we can achieve the goal. president used the old frame to say if people can really solidarity together -- can be moldedment -- molded. this is sentence president emphasized. secondly -- [inaudible] if you want become rich, you must force the fed up road. that's very simple but very deeply reflect fracture, the fact that the whole importance of development infrastructure.

and this big gap must be filled, and we must develop infrastructure to boost our economy. third point president xi jinping emphasizeed aib is open and inclues i. inclusive. and this give can us very clear instruction. the intention for that is the forecast on economic development rather than any other intention. the relationship between aib is complimentary role rather than replace. so more generally to say china role in current international financial system is constructive and we play the

contributor function and we want improve that. we want have the capacity of that rather than any intention to overthrow the current system. very clear single, that's three point. very clear symbol very clear. and really reflect the president's policy china and president xi himself. and so we pay attention -- after visit to beijing. international finance system reform or international

financial architecture reform. so we hope china and united states have important members of imf, world bank. we are working together to contribute to improve and enhance the capacity of imf and the world bank. we strongly urge u.s. congress quickly approve 2010imf quota reform agenda -- 2010 imf quota reform agenda. also -- i'm sorry.

[laughter] second one is about president xi jinping visit in september. president obama invite president xi jinping visit to have state visit to u.s. in september. so it's very important visit. and we strongly believe the successful visit successful meeting between president xi jinping, president obama can give very positive impact to the relations between china and u.s., also give very positive impact to the global. and i just recall in 2013 in california two presidents have a meeting, and --

[inaudible] i think the very important one is between our two countries to reach the agreement. negotiation of bilateral investment treaty negotiation is me establishment and -- [inaudible] also negative for investment. big impact from the discussion. for last year twos had long time

talk. we know that agreement's reached. most attractive one by international attention is environment agreement. both presidents made joint statement, denounceed -- on climate change. that really boost moment to deal with climate change issue. so that's a very important -- [inaudible] by i last time two presidents meeting achievement. now we have great expectation for september meeting by president xi jinping and president obama. however, we understand those achievements must be based on the strong support by our two

great peoples. so we work to make sure every effort -- [inaudible] for president xi jinping and president obama's meeting. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, minister zhu. you have a reputation as being forthright and strong and open, and i think you more than met that expectation with your opening comments today. we thank you for being here. as board huntsman said -- >> times very francly, that's the -- frankly that's the culture between our two countries. >> well, that's right. and i must indicate that the idea of opening this to the

media came from his ministry. and we appreciate your desire to be frank, to have an open exchange. i want to underscore your -- and recognize your commitment to a very strong bilateral relationship. and so we're very grateful you would take the time at this busy moment to come and meet. let me start this q&a and i'll just pose one or two questions to you. i want to turn it to the audience very quickly, please. and let me begin and probe a little deeper, if i can. you had highlighted in the first half of your remarks china's initiatives with respect to the financial architecture, in particular in asia. and ask you about rules, norms,

standards that underlie these institutions, if i could. you have indicated in your remarks a very strong commitment to the existing international system, the bretton woods system. you have also said that the new institutions that china has proposed are complimentary to that. is this about simply the adjustment that's required in recognition of china's rising status? is this sum my about the mobilization -- is this simply about the mobilization of resources with $8 trillion gap in infrastructure you referenced? is out about inefficient and

slow existing institutions and responding? is it about representation; that is, a need for larger voice at the table? not just for china but for me merging markets? or is there, if i could ask, something more than that? is there here a set of, shall we say, chinese or asian norms or rules or principles that you are seeking to establish as undergurding the existing architecture? help us, help us understand a little deeper the distinction between process structure and underlying values behind these institutions if you would. thank you. >> thank you.

you want to know the inside conciliation. i understand that concern. fortunately, i just report to all of you those three points emphasized by president xi jinping that give the proposal this bank aib. and absolutely we follow the instruction from our -- and the president himself also keep very close watch and must be on the right track for development. that's a general important comprehensive policy. now more detail. i want to report you for our thinking the bank must be uprooted based on rule of law. adb is mandate of aib or article

agreement of aib. now the founding member is fixed in the -- [inaudible] you'll have more opportunity to gather together to discuss mandate. that's very important. if -- and everything is decide by real negotiation and rule of law. so true not only china -- through not only china, that's true -- through the negotiation. and of course china from u.s. from others we want high standard. we agree with high standard. and that gathered opinion federal negotiation and reflect in the form of legal document.

that bank where follow the rule of law, of aib. we hope that in three months we can really conclude negotiation mandate. so we know world bank -- [inaudible] building discussion. members have their reflect large members -- [inaudible] this process should be followed each member country's system. and this is rule of law.

procurement guidance. that's detailed policy guidance. i think -- [inaudible] give the proposal to approve award. and, of course, we hope that this bank is really can help to fill the gap of funding need and funding available investment infrastructure, but we understand even 50 billion to $100 billion as capital still not -- still smaller to compare

with the larger demand. there must be capacity to mobilize private capital. so private capital mobilization, we must be very careful and let's properly fund to show the function and mobilize private sector investment. private sector inon principle. the only thing with investment is real perfect, otherwise they will wait. so -- [inaudible] as the seed money and to have project assessment and prepare project maybe small comprehensive way and the balance real demand in social

side and profitability. but i think that's the world bank adb -- [inaudible] we should be learning from that interference. and we should exactly follow the policy guidance but we couldn't couldn't -- [inaudible] world bank sometime world bank china many times, you want -- one project that's very difficult to achieve the results, and some fall your is of course, too much expectation. that's good -- [inaudible] but not reflect reality. so we hope exactly follow the

policy such as resettlement policy procurement policy and so on. but through project reached the policy target should be based on reality. so that's basic thug. in general -- thinking. in general, we hold that the mandate is real rule of law and inside policy -- [inaudible] learn from world bank adb and for real piece to show reflect reality. >> those are high aspirations. i'm struck i think by the by the language you use and in many ways its similarity to the kind of standards the values and

operation that existing lenders use. institutions are obviously impacted by a lot of external eties. i mean you made reference to the necessity to incorporate high standards with respect to environment, population dislocation. interest groups, outside interest groups in these areas have obviously had a significant impact on the ability of existing institutions to lend into infrastructure projects. you reference also the discipline of the market, the ability to take projects to the market and to fund them in addition with private capital. that obviously is another constraint that impacts. how do you, how do you think

operationally about the ability of the bank to deal with these kinds of outside realities? i mean, i hear the standards you articulate. some have said, and i would be interested in your reaction to this that if the aib wants to become successful, it really has to look a lot like the existing multilateral lending institutions. certainly, if it's underlying standards, rules modes of operation are similar. >> policy similar but that's the way i think we must have --

[inaudible] i used to be world bank executive director in 2001. i jointly with india made the proposal suggest that world bank should be back to finance infrastructure. why in the history -- [inaudible] jointly made proposal to the -- that means world bank sometimes away from investment in the infrastructure because for 19' 90 1980, that time private sector infrastructure. now people think withdraw public money, world bank adv or other bank withdrawal focus to only social development. i think that's the lessons we

must learn. we should insist on the policy infrastructure development is real goal. i don't think world bank totally back but -- [inaudible] world bank already increased the investment in infrastructure. but i definitely recall in early 2000 -- [inaudible]

the infrastructure -- [inaudible] now increase investment in infrastructure. that's why -- as you indicate, a role for partnership between the institutions pushing them both toward -- >> yesterday i had talk with president kim. president kim -- [inaudible] much expectation is real -- [inaudible]

we see play parliamentary role to current development bank. and i believe president kim, president abk in sync -- >> he has articulated that. >> is so that show real complementary role -- >> right. let me now if i could turn to the audience and we'll start with the laidty here. and then -- lady here and then go up here and then i'll get some of the others who have raised their hands. if you could state your name, your affiliation first. >> sure. i'd reid hutchens from central news agency, taiwan. regarding the aib, i wonder is the chinese -- [inaudible] for being a member aub from china's point of view? and also i'm just wondered, are you aware of any reason why taiwan cannot be a prospective founding member of aib? thank you.

>> oh -- >> gave you a hard one. >> yeah -- [inaudible] stable environment and promote economic development. regarding her question specifically on ark -- on aib and i repeat president sijin pipping's side -- xi jinping's side the third principle is open and conclusive.

both sides close street deepening discussion can. now issue is what real -- [inaudible] to join the aib. so i can -- new opportunity as new minute of aib. we hope it's opportunity, there's more understanding and more cooperation. and the peace development. >> thank you. we'll go here to the front then i'm going to work my way back. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you. i'm jennifer li with hong kong tv. i have a question regarding yesterday's g20 meeting.

yesterday you had a meeting with your counterparts of the united states, japan and europe. i wonder what's the many issues you discussed, and have you reached any consensus? also is the aib also part of the discussion? have the united states and japan showed their intention to join orbit? thank you. -- or not? >> that's a lady's question and also from our tehran -- [inaudible] yesterday we had a g20 meeting but four countries will have -- publicly or privately. >> privately. [laughter] >> so taking advantage of

opportunity of the g20. that's many countries to have that's bilateral or some bilateral meeting and discuss the global economic situation. i i must emphasize g20 is important because of global situation and financial market stability. and now -- [inaudible] this time we also emphasize very much this boost of confidence, and we certainly faced some

challenge including divided monetary policy. u.s. certainly will -- [inaudible] be careful chairman yellen style. we will not realize normalization in next meeting. that's in april. but after that anything can happen. let's leave the room to think in june meeting is possibility to increase or not increase. so that's very careful chairman yellen introduction. and, however, my understand is that u.s. real good to increase normalization. and with very patient way --

[inaudible] and their intention, of course 2% and boost european economy. that's some um improvement in economy. but we pay attention to yesterday and the day before. germany ten years bond yield -- so cpi is up. that's good thing but bonds yield, particularly ten years yield s to the negative. we should very carefully evaluate situation. for japan it's already eight trillion -- [inaudible]

so in this way the global coordination become more important. for emerging economy -- the india china show stable growth. on the other hand the situation in russia and brazil should be make more -- [inaudible] so that's very duded situation in the monetary policy -- divided situation in monetary policy. so now how important is real make policy decision --

[inaudible] fiscal policy -- that's real meaningful policy expansion is possible. so i think i report to you all that's the general discussion. what's your next question? oh aib. aib. this time not too much, but i can frankly talk with you just march 30, march 31 when the secretary in beijing, he on behalf of president obama give the full discretion u.s. policy to -- [inaudible]

infrastructure development. second u.s. come, china play the big role in international financial affairs. third point u.s. insist on high standard, and for this u.s. china will keep information change -- [inaudible] so i think something already described -- in the congress here. >> i'm going to call on matthew here in a minute, but just a g20 comment if i could very quickly. we may be seeing as i think some of your comments indicated and i think we're sensing here

that we've exhausted the impact of accommodative monetary policy. you mentioned the impact of fiscal, but as a suggestion just very quickly -- i'm not asking you to respond -- infrastructural, that is you need structural reform within economies as a theme a focus of your presidency next year in the context of the g20. the deep structural reform although different in each of our countries, is very profound. >> particularly we come to this idea and increase the potential productivity become more important. -- [inaudible] >> right. we've exhausted monetary and fiscal personality. matthew and then here. matthew? >> thank you. first of all, i agree a good priority for your g20 here. i wanted to ask two specific questions about the governance

of if aib. if someone were to join next round not as a founding member, how would the capital showers of those economies -- shares of those economies be handled? it could significantly change the allocation of shares. the second question is about your plans for a resident board or plans apparently not to have a resident board in beijing at the bank. can you explain the rationale if that's the correct understanding of your plans? >> yes. i think that's for japan and taiwan as economy is different than u.s. law. u.s. is offset of asia, and japan and the economy of taiwan is inside asia. so according to mou agreed by previous decide founding

members, that's 25-30% of -- [inaudible] that's a big portion because that's aib is asia infrastructure investment bank. and it is already agreed and reflect in the mou signed last october. this one about residential board. i know that's many debate. i think that's the intention is increase the efficiency --

[inaudible] >> right here and then next. >> thank you. [inaudible] news agency of hong kong. i still remember last time when you came to this town you make a speech in peterson institute. you talk a lot about the bip, bilateral investment treaty and you also mention that china will not challenge the dominant leadership of the united states in the financial system. you mentioned that the be. i.t -- b.i.t. negative -- [inaudible] would be proposed in the early months of this year, but we still didn't see that happening. could we expect that the b.i.t. could be reached before or when president xi jinping comes to this town to have a visit? and secondary, you mention that china will not change the

current international financial system, but do you think this time that international reaction and the response is beyond your expectation regarding the aiib? thank you. [laughter] >> good. about aiib just i report to you this very important achievement in discussion by president xi president obama to launching negotiation on bilateral investment between china and u.s.. presettlement activities. i think certainly both sides -- [inaudible]

but very frankly president obama and president xi jinping to have important meeting in september and we couldn't conclude that because we are expectation -- [inaudible] in september we can reach substantial stage achievement and they'll pave the way for next. but i can report yesterday in congress senator -- [inaudible] ask the same question. he said what happened to -- [inaudible] documentation? i said we are relative. we both have -- and the u.s.

team will be back from tpp into this conversation and the negotiations. but both sides very, very emphasize, for china not only relations for china/u.s., we also think that's to promote domestic. so now you can see we issued our dependent -- independent activities. [inaudible] we hope that that's the hard work by -- [inaudible] we are expectation in september bug -- big achievement before stage can be achieved, and next

year we try very hard to conclude go,. conclude negotiation. i can report to you from very beginning i agree u.s. official, including official for china's proposal china's intention. and just one issue a little u.s./china play the big role in international affairs and now we made proposal. u.s. is beginning show some hesitate but now secretary l everything w on behalf of president obama made very clear the position -- secretary lew on behalf of president obama made very clear the position.

>> thank you. i just want to take note if i understood you -- i don't want to read too much in, but your expectation that the trans-pacific partnership will happen this year. did i understand your -- >> because professor -- >> go ahead. you don't have to -- [laughter] >> let's get mr. lieberthal to ask can -- we only have a few more minutes, and we're going to take a question quickly from the back after ken. >> many times. >> kenneth lieberthal, brookings institution. first of all is it your expectation that the tpp will be concluded this year? [laughter] but secondly -- >> this was not coordinated. [laughter] >> secondly, on the b.i.t. did i understand you correctly to say that you would hope and expect that the b.i.t. will be

completed and rat fayed -- ratified before the end of the obama administration? i guess my question related to that is since next year obviously is a very political year in the united states if it cannot be ratified by the end of the administration, by the end of this administration, do you think it's very important to have it completed by the end of the administration and then have a completed agreement come up in the next administration? >> yes. >> very good. go ahead. >> for tpp, because that's very frankly, yesterday treasury briefed us and tpa just big debate in congress. and if tpa can be approved most likely in june and some discussion of conclude in september. so that's information we got.

based on -- [inaudible] they told us that's real story. now tpa in june can be -- that's a timetable that's not being described by u.s. administration . tpa debate now happen in congress. ..

i must say your candy a positive happy warrior outlook -- [laughter] is inspirational, and we have high regard for you as an orator come as when compared to the highly independent and very healthy bilateral relationship. so thank you very much for being here. it's been our great pleasure. >> thank you. [applause]