tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 18, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
thank you so much for being with us. this is part of the council's project on shaping the asia pacific future. we have the secretary of u.s. treasury department and former special envoy on china. the project is currently on phase one which focuses on the economic and financial architecture and this includes the asian infrastructure and infrastructure bank and the new development bank and the silk road initiative showing strong momentum.
and this includes under increasing scrutiny. this includes the investment and financial architecture. the international organization continues to expand in the upload chinese capital into foreign markets which is rising we have efforts to strengthen the economy face a new challenge. and there are great opportunities to pursue common interest and also serious potential risks of fragmentation and we are delighted to have the vice minister with us to provide his perspective on these very important elements.
the financial institutions in china's long-term vision. he was appointed to his current position in may of 2010 following a very distinguished career at the ministry of finance including china's director of the world bank and director general of the department and assist in minister. in this includes as we prepare to host the g20. i would like to invite the vice minister to the stage with his remarks and then we will have a q&a session moderated. the time is now yours, sir.
[applause] >> hello, i am here to promote this end i have been here trying my best to boost relations. [inaudible] and i am so happy to meet old and new friends. i would like to name them [inaudible] the professor is also here and you have contributed to this. today i'm really honored to be here at the atlantic council to talk about the ambassador
[inaudible] and this includes the we have voted annually. the u.s. had more than $100 billion [inaudible] and china holds less [inaudible] in treasury bonds. but our organization supports interconnected relations. this includes china and the economic bill. and this includes the element that may contribute to another side because he was so connected to our two countries.
and this is an important part of the shareholders and what they are about and the impact that this has come including law agencies who are also our agencies. and then also they boost the reform of the agency and this can be reflected [inaudible] including the global and economic structure and we just have to make sure that we
[inaudible] china contributes to the group and they have increased the amount. we have domestic priorities and we have this international ability to increase this to the group. and that includes how we hope that everything will contribute to the global poverty reduction program. not only largely reduced best
and this has had 83-point an interesting effect on a proposal to it. and fortunately we are doing our best to emphasize. we must make a correct deal and promote growth. and underneath we have a strong and solid fabric to achieve the goal. >> if you must reach, you must force this road. that is a very simple and import
[inaudible] including pension reform. and it's very important for members of this they are working together to contribute to improve and enhance theirs. they strongly urge congress to be approved [inaudible] and also damaged was the image of the united states. i strongly hope that the u.s. congress can discuss a proposal
[inaudible] and sometimes we have some strong support with two great people. we want to make sure [inaudible] and so thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> you have a representative reputation of being forthright and strong. i think you for that expectation with your opening comments today and we thank you for being here. as the ambassador said.
in particular in asia and ask about rules, norms and things that underlie. you have indicated in your remarks a very strong commitment to the existing international system. you have also said that the newest thing china has proposed are complementary to that. is this about the adjustment that's required in recognition of china's rising status? is this about the mobilization of sources?
is it about inefficient and slow institutions in responding? is it about representation for a larger voice at the table not just for china? or is there something more than that? is there here a set of chinese norms or rules or principles that you are seeking to establish for the existing architecture. help us understand the distinction between process and
that's good but it doesn't reflect reality. they should reach the policy target so that's the thinking. in generally we hope the mandate is the real law of law and to use the policy to decide and learn from the real practice to reflect the valid. >> those are high aspirations. i'm struck by the language you use and in many many ways its
similarity to the kind of standards the values and operation that exist existing lenders use. institutions are obviously impacted by a lot of externalities. you made mention to a nuns necessity to incorporate high standards to protect the environment, population dislocation, interest groups and outside interests groups of these areas have had a significant impact on the ability of existing institutions to lend to infrastructure
projects. you referenced also the discipline of the market. the the ability to take project to the market and fund them in addition with private capital, that obviously is another strength that impacts -- how do you think operationally about the bank to deal with these kinds of outside realities? i hear the standards you articulate. some have said and i'd be interested in your reaction to this, if they want to become successful it really has to look a lot like the existing multilateral lending institutions. set certainly the underlying standards rules, modes of operation are similar.
your bank. [inaudible] they are in sync. that is a real complementary role. >> if i could turn to the audience now and will start with this lady here and then go up here and i'll get some of the others that raised their hand. if you could state your name and your affiliation. >> regarding that i wondered if the chinese are accepted as
being a member and i wondered are you aware of any reason why they cannot be a perspective funding member? >> we are very happy and we hope that people think we should be working together to develop this piece. we want to have the chinese joined the stable environment and the economic development. regarding her question the third principle is open and inclusive.
>> i'm jennifer young. i have a question about yesterday's meeting. you had a meeting with your counterparts of the united states and the euro. what are the issues you discussed and have you reached any consensus? were they part of the discussion with united states and japan show their intention to join? >> we had a meeting.
appreciated the boost of a sentence. confidence. more to the. [inaudible] we will not realize this in the next meeting. but after that anything can happen. there is a possibility to increase so you have to be careful with the introduction however i understand we will look to increase that normalization.
if i could, very quickly. we may be seeing as i think some of your comments indicated and i sense we've exhausted the impact you mention the impact of fiscal, as a comment just very quickly, structural reform within economies is a theme focus of your presidency next year in the context of the g20. it is different in each of our countries and it is very profound. >> it will become more important >> we've exhausted monetary and fiscal, personally. matthew your question. >> thank you first you first of all i agree the structural form is very important.
i wanted to ask two questions about the governance. if the united states or japan or taiwan were to join in the future, how would the capital shares of those countries be handled? especially with big countries like the u.s. and japan it could change the allocation of shares. the second question is about your plans for a resident board or decision not to have a resident board in beijing. can you explain the rationality? >> the u.s. is different from the japan law. the economy of japan is inside asia so according to.
rather than mandated. >> thank you. i feel to remember last time when you came to this talk you made a speech and talked a lot about the it and the initial investment. you also mention that chat china will not challenge the leadership of the united states. you mention that the negative list would be proposed in the early month but we didn't see that happen. can we expect that it can be reached before or when they come
>> we are trying very hard to conclude. [inaudible conversations] >> oh, yes sir. he has been a part of communications. as i have told you from the very beginning, i agree about this. and we cannot regulate the international affairs. and now frankly we are working on behalf of days. we have tried our best to facilitate communications.
this will be completed and ratified before the end of the obama administration and i guess that my question related to that is since next year is obviously a very political year in the united states, if it cannot be ratified by the end of the administration and this administration, do you think it is important to have it completed by the end of the administration? and then have a completed agreement, up in the next administration? [inaudible] >> and congress, if that can be approved. in the way that this will conclude in september.
>> very good. i'm going to ask the forgiveness of the audience. we are at 3:00 o'clock, i mean 4:00 o'clock, and we promised you promptly that we would adjourn because you have other commitments and so let me just express the appreciation to you on behalf of everyone. i must say that your can do and positive, happy warrior outlook is inspirational and we have high regard for you as one committed to a highly independent and very healthy bilateral relationship. so we thank you very much for>> "washington
journal" continues. host: we have a roundtable this morning on the state of working women in the u.s. our guests are vicki shabo. good morning. we also say hello to veronique de rugy. thank you for being with us, as well. when we had that big, broad topic, what is the most important issue of their right now? guest: well, i think actually the thing that i would like to start with, and to emphasize how good women have it up -- have it as opposed to the last 60 years. i think a lot of the topics we have on this issue tend to treat
the problems as if we haven't made any progress. but we have. and quite spectacular ways. i think it is really worse -- worth pointing that women graduate at higher rates even than men. and i think there are women who enjoy a lot of flexibility with work. and to the extent that they face this issue, i honestly think it is not so much about gender, so much as about the state of the economy. and a handful of issues that men face, like underemployment, a slow economic recovery, lower wages, and things like this. but i don't know it is quite specific to women, like the bigger issue that i see about the labor markets. host: and what do you see on their? guest: i think veronica is right, there has been incredible progress for women over the past 60 years. but i don't think we have come far. we just saw a report out this
week showing the wage gap. does a woman who are working full-time, year-round. if we look at women of color the wage gap is far greater. $.64 for african-american women $.51 for hispanic women. if you look at every occupation, every industry, by education level, veronica is completely right that women's opportunities have progressed, but the kind of policies that we need for women, and for men, the kinds of flexibility policies really haven't kept up. and still underneath it all there is still some discrimination. host: we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our viewers to weigh in on the state of women in the workforce.
we have plenty of time here to talk things through, but why don't you follow up on some of the numbers that vicki shabo put up? 77%. the white house says 77% -- women make 77% of what their coworkers make. guest: i think it is an extremely misleading figure. even the washington -- "washington post" and others who have looked at it. and even when you economists and economic advisers -- they all acknowledge that the problem with that is that it tends to say that women who work in the same position, the same number of hours, are paid must -- much
less. but what economists have found is that when you control for the number of hours worked, when you control for education, when you control for whether a woman works and has children and has taken a lot of time off, the gap almost disappears. life choices, if you will, made by men and women -- the labor department's survey shows that it is not exactly the same thing. women work 8.1 hours when their work full-time. that is an average. and man, 7.75 hours. so, we have to be careful not to say that there is a wide discrimination between women and men doing exactly the same thing, working the same hours having the same level of experiences. host: vicki shabo? guest: i am very glad that you
brought all of that up. we talk about $.78, and i think the president's figure is from last year. that is for women, on average who are working full-time year-round. brock at is not looking at many women in the exact same jobs. that is not looking at the exact same number of hours. full-time for women is maybe a couple of hours less per week than men. but what we see is there are all these factors at play. the reason i bring up wage policies discrimination, workplace policies like flexible schedules, lack of access to paid medical leave, lack of access to paid six days, is that -- is because that is how the women are able to exist in a workplace where the rules are really meant to be rules. but we are in a time, like the
secretary likes to say, of modern families. -- and that is true according to -- that 7% weight cap starts out a year out of college for college educated women and college educated men. and that is controlling for virtually every factor. host: sorry to cut you off there. will is calling from akron ohio. well, you are our first call. go ahead, please. caller: ok, good morning, everyone. i want to direct this question more so to vicki. i heard a statistic, 77%. when it -- what i am looking to find out is you get the statistics early on with african-american women and latina women. i assume that asian men probably make equal or more than white men on average full-time
workers, where to african-american men and latino men matchup statistically? because i think that if you look at them individually or separately, you will see that the numbers -- because i think that is probably there are probably more white men soaring above everybody else. could you help out -- do you know those statistics or where i could find the statistics at? guest: you are absolutely right, will, and i'm so glad you asked the question. when we are using comparators, we are using white men. you are right, there is a wage gap, as well, between white men and african american men and latino men. host: do you want to add to that? guest: yes, that is one of the things that is pointed out very often. indeed, it compares things that honestly shouldn't be compared. if you really want to compare
more equally, and that was a point that several made, is that that number for black women and hispanics compared with white men, which is a weird choice because right there, you created distortion that is bigger than it should be. that being said, it doesn't mean that there aren't issues, but a lot of them aren't the product of discrimination. and there are things we need to address because there are concerns about lower wages. since the recovery, there is a lot of evidence that a lot of middle-class wages have been turned into low class wages. these are issues we need to take into consideration. host: we have elizabeth on the line from santa rosa california. thank you for calling, elizabeth. she is a democrat. good morning. caller: yeah, i wonder why -- why some people think that --
that just because a man is married and he has kids, he needs a bigger wage than a woman. guest: if i can just start you have probably other insights but i don't think that anyone thinks that. i think that what the data shows is that one of the reasons why men may make more money than women is because of life choices. a lot of the -- they are overly represented in professions that are high risk. and very intense in hours. as opposed to women. it is true that, overwhelmingly, women are still the ones who take care of their children. they are the ones taking maternity leave, they are the ones requiring flexibility or needing flexibility. so, i don't think it is that we think that men should have more -- higher wages, i think it is a
function of the choices, the professional choices that are made. host: vicki shabo, how about those choices? guest: so, i think choices is a little bit of a red herring in the debate. i think to the extent that choices are at a, it has a lot to do with factors -- these factors that veronica are talking about. in that women are still the primary caregivers. just quickly on this one point about the fatherhood bonus and the motherhood penalty, it is very well documented in literature comparing full-time workers to full-time workers. on the dangerous occupations, i have heard this argument a lot. i went and looked at some of those dangerous occupations, and the wage gap persists in each one of those. even women that are working in those occupations are still
putting less than men. host: a little bit of perspective, this is on the democratic side. two thirds of families rely on a mother's income. they generally contributed about 40% of the household income. and their earnings account for more than half of household income among 38% of married couples. jerome from south carolina. hey, jerome. jerome, are you there? caller: i would just like to say to the lady -- something about how the, you know, the lasix use has improved for women. you could say the same thing about race riots; however, the news proves that different. women are far more -- even today -- far less likely to have any say over their body. they are losing their rights daily. the powershift is apparent to anybody who has paid attention that women are beginning to step
up and say, have had enough and we are doing this for others. and that is what i would like to say. women are still behind. we are so far behind that i think sometimes my dogs are smarter than we are. peace. host: thanks for calling. guest: i mean, if women think that they are behind -- don't get me wrong, there are women who face a lot of difficulty. it is hard to juggle work and families. there is no doubt about this. i think that women have proven over the generations that they are very capable of stepping up for themselves and demanded what they need and what they want. and changing the culture. it is really -- we need to come and reminisce in the 1950's and the 1970's who actually really brought up these issues of discrimination. and we are going to change things and we have made tremendous progress.
i'm in, culture shift an economic shift. women are doing so much better. and again, doesn't mean it's perfect? does it mean we can just go home and not care about it and never talk about it? absolutely not. but try to pretend that women today are still in a state of complete oppression, where their rights are curtailed in the u.s. i think is an overstatement. host: the pay issue, just for a couple of more minutes. vicki shabo, remind us of the history of the equal pay act. when did it come about? and what has been the result in your view? guest: the equal pay act was passed in 1963. john kennedy signed it. it basically said that women should be paid equally to men based on skills, responsibilities, and experience.
that was an incredible first up. it was the first in a line of civil rights laws that came about the 1970's that did start that process. so, it was in -- an historic first up, but it has not gone far enough. and there are a couple of issues still. one is that it is pretty easy for employers still to discriminate and pay women and men different amounts based on a pretty loose definition of business necessity. the second issue is that the remedies under the act aren't as good as under some of the later civil rights laws, like title vii. so, we need to improve those. we also need to create policies where women and nobody, actually, for the gentleman's point, where evil are not retaliated against for simply sharing their pay information. often, we hear about and see people like -- who found out
they were being paid less than their male counterparts, but they didn't have the right to talk about it in the workplace. something like 50% of people face retaliation for talking about their wages. host: bringing it more to present day, there is a paycheck fairness act that is out there in congress right now. some of the details, which you have touched on a little bit connected to job performance not to jenna. this act prohibits retaliation by employees for saying -- sharing salary information. it establishes negotiation skills training programs. where is that legislation right now in congress? guest: i don't think it is really going anywhere. maybe you can speak more to this actually. because i haven't followed the step-by-step. host: what do you think about the idea of updating the older law with something new? guest: here's the thing, again, i think we are fighting a battle
using misguided data. we have established that women tend to work fewer hours. yeah women working exactly the same hours, the same amount of time, doing exactly the same thing should be paid the same. they shouldn't be discriminated but the best way we are going to be serving women is to have a flexible labor market, a growing economy where employers have to compete for employees. i am very concerned actually about having mandated regulations that may backfire against women because they may make them more expensive, and hence, less desirable. i think we have to be very careful. all of these rigidities that we include in the labor market actually means it is going to be -- it is going to be harder to employ women. there are trade-offs with everything. host: let me bring alan into the
program from clearwater, florida. good morning to you. caller: hi, how are you today? host: doing well. how are you? caller: pretty good. what i would like to talk about, and i don't hear very often when they talk about daycare, i have a family member and he is autistic. he is 27 years old. what they give him is rested -- he gets about 15 hours a week ok, where he can go out with a trained person out into society. now, the rest of the time, he is at home or with the other family member going to the store and everything. my thing is -- one week is 168 hours. how would you like to spend 153 hours with your loved one? [laughter]
they do not talk about anything about increasing the time. as a matter of fact, they keep decreasing it. it was ok when he was in school because she worked with the school system and had the same days off. once he graduated, that was it. and he had companionship and he had rested -- and they said you can work with the -- but the caretaker had to be, you know, you couldn't do it separated. you could go out or you had to stay at home, depending on the respit. i don't know if it was the state or the feds said ok, we will combine them.