monday night on "the communicators," christopher shelton, president of the comedic-ish and workers of america, discusses the union's recent 45 day strike against verizon and also covers the seed of the way -- cwa's position on trade and interest in broadband expansion. he's joined by thomson reuters reporter david shepherdson. >> landline in the voice world may at some point go away. want tole more and more have broadband capability. all over the united states, it's a big fight. the fcc is giving companies money to build up broadband in rural communities. that's a part of what we do. i think it's going to become an even bigger part of what we do. "> watch "the communicators,

monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. now, a look at the global impact cities have on business, the environment, politics, and crime. speakers include chicago mayor rahm emanuel, former treasury secretary henry paulson, and representatives from the u.k., singapore, and thailand. this was cohosted by the "financial times" and the chicago council on global affairs. it is just over one hour. [applause] thank you very much, indeed, for that lovely welcome. on behalf of the "financial times, as u.s. managing editor, we are absolutely delighted to be par partnering with the chicago global counsel on this very important event. not just because we love chicago

here at the "f.t.," though we certainly do, particularly when the weather is like this. and not just because we love smart conversation with intelligent people, and looking at you in the audience, i know there are a lot of people who have a lot of ideas to offer on the future of cities, and i look forward to hearing what you all have to say. but we are particularly pleased to be partnering on this event for the second time because we know that cities really matter. we are in the business of stories, news stories, and cities are at the center of almost every single story that the "financial times" writes today. good stories, about amazing economic dynamism, cultural collisions, technological change, exciting political participation, but also very bad stories about terrorism, about pollution, about rioting, income inequality about many problems

with corporate and political governance. but either way, these stories effect most of our two million strong readers around the world, and i should mention that 30% of those are actually in america, and america is our biggest market. they are very important stories. so important, in fact, that we have a special report coming out tomorrow looking at the future of cities, and we have also made the ft.com website freely accessible to all of you here over the next couple of days. so i look forward to some fantastic conversations in the next couple of days. we have several leading ft journalists from around the world who have come here to moderate. whatk forward to hearing the amazing array of delegates have to say about these very important issues, and finding ways to turn bad stories about

cities into good stories in the future. most importantly, i would like man whod a welcome to a is probably best placed to start off the event. mayor rahm emanuel will say a few things to kick us off. thank you. [applause] mayor emanuel: thanks. i want to thank all of you for being here, especially the guests. as mayor of chicago, you would make me happiest if you spent some money and bought some things. [laughter] we have a budget we need to meet, so that would be helpful. on a serious note, this is our second year of having a forum. it is one of the most exciting things happening around the world today, and you can see it around the world, a renaissance of our cities. the intellectual, cultural, and economic center of either a

metro area for global area. news for the city of chicago, in the last four years there have been three distinct studies of 100 cities. magazines, in each of the studies of 100 global cities, chicago is ranked in the top 10 cities, ninth, eight, or seventh as economically competitive. as mayor, i agree with the one that said we were the seventh most competitive in the world. thank you. a fellow chicago and competitive middle child, right there. it fell in line with something we did in my first year of my first term. i asked the brookings institute and mckinsey to do a study, looking at chicago, our strengths, our challenges, are opportunities, and to layout a business plan for the city for the next 10 years. all three of the former studies

and the brookings institute and the mckinsey study came back with the same conclusion about the city of chicago, and we have an economic plan focusing on talent, transportation, and technology, and by investing in those three things, continuing to invest in those three things, continuing to keep chicago at the competitive edge it has as it competes around the globe. in the first three studies, what's also interesting for the city,, although we were in the top 10 ranking, we were the only city in the top 10 ranking that was not the respective country's financial or political capital. new york was on the list, berlin, tokyo, and all of them are either political or financial capitals of their countries. chicago is, thank god, not the political or financial capital, but we are the heartland of the united states. i think chicago is the most american of american cities.

so the conference were having today, and i have had meetings with colleagues from around the globe, we all face the same challenges, how to find the resources to invest in the future and make sure that our city continues to be a high-quality living experience for people of diverse backgrounds to continue to call home. as we continue to approach this, and i learned a lot from my colleagues around the globe facing similar challenges and looking for answers, the the decisions we make will determine what chicago will look like in the next 30 or 40 years. i welcome all of you to the city, and thank those who have helped make this possible, as a continual effort for us to keep the dialogue going and learn from each other as we make decisions about investing in the future. >> please welcome to the stage

the investor, secretary henry governor sukhumbhand paribatra, and our panel moderator. [applause] good evening, everybody, and welcome once again. welcome to the opening panel of this conference, looking at the cities.f global in many ways, this except where mayor emanuel just left off. recentlys, chicago has been given an audit of its strengths and weaknesses, and what it can do to invest to make for a more vibrant and successful city in the future. what we will do in this panel is essentially take those steps further and say, well, if you look at global cities around the world as a whole, what does an audit look like today? are cities working?

are they not working? which cities would we hold up as being top of the class, and which ones are the disaster zones? which ones are going to essentially be worthy of praise, and which ones are problems? diversea fantastically collection of people to talk about this. i will not present them all again now, but we have at one end ambassador chan, representing the city state of singapore, are goodly one of the most successful cities in the world. we have secretary paulson, who has been working with chicago, looking at the issue of urban innovation, in relation to the u.s. and china for many years. a british member of parliament very involved in the

role of london on the global stage, trying to defend london's interest, and we have governor sukhumbhand paribatra, governor of the city of bangkok in thailand, a former academic and clinical scientist who spent years analyzing problems and trying to fix them in thailand recently. so, i would like to start by chen. ambassador 14 years as singapore's ambassador to washington, looking at singapore in the global context. many americans, many europeans would look at singapore today and say, not only are you perhaps one of the most potent city states in the world, but also in some ways you are an extraordinary success story as a city. what are the key lessons for why singapore works today? how much timen:

do i have? >> three minutes. : singapore has" two advantages. it is a global city, and a city state. we can be small and nimble, but we also have the authority, the sovereignty, and the financial resources to do things. and that has helped us enormously. singapore has taken advantage, first of what its original goal has been, as a maritime and trading center, and we piled on other functions. that is very important for global growth. are you relevant? can you remain relevant? from a maritime and trading center, we have become a financial center, a , the thirdal center largest in the world. hub.e are an aviation

the more you do, the more you will have. the more will come. people will come, talent will come, business will come. i think we have capitalized on that. the second point about singapore is we were fortunate to start af with excellent leadership, leadership that having no resources, no oil, no money, no water, chose to be strategic and to develop human resources, people. and by being strategic, i think hisfounding father and ministers really found a role, and constantly try to define a role for singapore, and build an excellent bureaucracy, an honest bureaucracy, a disciplined bureaucracy, and we work as a

whole of government. every agency is coordinated. when you are small, city-state sized, you can be coherent and you can have rapid policy response, so it comes together. i say all this, but there are times when we are not so well coordinated. gillian: remind us how many people live in singapore today. 5.5 million.an: gillian: how many in bangkok today? mr. paribatra: the registered population is 5.7, but i believe there are 10 million to 12 million. gillian: so, when you as governor of bangkok look at singapore and see the extraordinary success, and what strikes me most about singapore is not just that you are flexible and in some ways a modernist, but also your holistic. when you look at a story like singapore, do you think you could be singapore? can you copy singapore, or is

that too difficult given the history? gov. paribatra: we are always very jealous of singapore. [laughter] the unity of national and local governance. task much one's easier. in thailand, things are much more complicated. there are different legal, political, social and financial settings. gillian: yet bangkok does have an amazing sense of cultural history. nobody will stand up and suddenly saying "one night in singapore," are they? gov. paribatra: i'm not sure whether that is a compliment. [laughter] gillian: i think we can take it as a compliment. gillian, can i:

add this point. i pointed out the reasons why singapore is successful, but our position is not unassailable. a city state, it global city can lose its position. take venice. singapore, it has become our task and role to always define new relevance, and that is why we are upset with constantly reinventing ourselves. so far, i think we have done ok. to the: i want to return question about whether being created and cool, and bangkok in many people's eyes is being seen as creative and cool, whether that makes it hard to be organized, too, whether you need the messy collisions to be cool or not. when you talk about innovation, that is a key issue. ms.i would like to bring in jowell. we recently ran advertisements

about our brexit coverage, which if you have not read it, is super, but we had a picture of venice and london asking, is london destined to become the new venice if brexit happens? i'm not necessarily going to ask you about brexit, though i'm sure people here would love to hear if you think it will happen or not, but how do you look at london today as a city, a clause i city state? jowell: i think london is not a city state, and it would not be good for london to be a city state. london is the former city in the united kingdom, contribute into the strength of the economy in the united kingdom, but it is clearly distinctive. in the planei was flying over here today, i was sinking about this, this elusive

definition of what is a global city. a global city is not a world city. not just a city. it's sort of describes a special kind of personality, self-confidence, which london certainly has. connectedness to the rest of the world, which london certainly has, woven into the rest of the world. immigration over a generation has created that. , during and after the olympics, was defined as a creative and cool city, but the ambassador is absolutely right about this. there are threats to london's position, as we would say, as the greatest city in the world. you can be creative and cool, but there is a limit to your creativity and coolness if there nde problems with visas a

you restrict talent coming in, if you do not have universal broadband coverage, and if young creative people cannot afford to live in the city, cannot afford to send their children to school there. so the threats facing london are actually rather prosaic. it's the lack of affordable housing. it's the level of congestion, the creeping infrastructure -- creaking infrastructure desperately in need of updating, with plans to do so. the skill mismatch, the fact of the constraint on construction at the pace london needs. the shortage of skilled labor, and so on. so you can see this, the ambitious, poetic part of the

identity, a creative city, but also the risk if it becomes disconnected by the means through which that creativity, that leadership, is actually sustained. gillian: but as someone who has looked at the governance of london in some detail, when you were considering your mayoral bid, did you feel jealous when you look at singapore and thought, if only i had a small, cohesive bureaucracy i could actually control, get to do things? ms. jowell i think there are two things. one, if you are the mayor of a great city, you transcend traditional tribal politics. that's the first thing. second, you have to be able to plan for the long-term. i mean, the transformation of singapore has been over, what,

20 years, 30 years? 50 years. ofting the challenges modernization london requires will take 20 years. so i think that is, you know, i think it's a mistake to look at other cities in envy, because london is a city of and for sodoners, distinct, therefore the way in which todon is run has to be true that. and there are aspects of, you know, the city state of singapore that would never work in london. london is kind of irreverent, --f-confident gillian: a young city. but it is a city

with fragility, and looking at those things lets you understand the challenges facing london over the next years. gillian: secretary paulson, you have never run a city, but you have run goldman sachs, which is probably as wealthy as your average city, and you have also run the u.s. treasury. from your experience having traveled over the world, which cities are the most successful today? sec. paulson: first of all, i love my city. i lived in new york, in washington, and i came back to live in chicago. i'm a big fan of chicago. two, i would say that i agree with the comments made here, how important management is to a city.

i watched chicago up and down based on the mayor's here. harder to screw up a national government than it is to screw up a city. i look at it from a, from a sort of unusual perspective, because i think basically, cities do not work unless there is a strong economic base. governments don't create jobs. but they create the conditions for business to create jobs. it's very competitive, because business and capital are ultimately going to go where it's most attracted to invest, and so, again, ilook at it through that focus. i think singapore has done a magnificent job. i think london has been a magnificent job. to me, they both really stand

out. i have, though, my focus. i can comment, having traveled around those places, but because my focus is u.s.-china relations, and on u.s.-china relations my focus is on economic sustainability and the environment, i look at urbanization through that route. so one of the biggest things on my mind, huge, it is i look at thiss going to happen, population explosion over the next two to 3 billion people. where are they going to go? to the city's. -- cities. think london and singapore are so important, and bangkok, is we're going to need models. because most of those, their growth will be in the developing

world. i will tell you there, there are huge issues. so as china figures out what urbanization model will look like, for the next 300 million people going into the cities, as they look to models elsewhere, as they help create models for the developing world, it's going to be really important. there, it's going to be, we are anding about all the arts what makes different city special. in the developing world, it's going to be management capacity. how do you train management capacity? if you don't get the plan right, you will really have problems. and finance. many parts of the world do not have municipal finance. when you look at what needs to be done to bring in clean

technologies, and i'm focused on the environment, i will tell you, we can argue about what roles cities play and whether the national government or the city plays a bigger role, but when you look at the linguistic -- dealing with waste management, transportation, buildings, that's at the city level. and if you are as concerned as i am about climate change and the economic risk from that, it's going to be all about what happens in the cities. therefore, that's why i think new york is so important, and i will tell you, i have got to say a few words about new york. i think new york compares very favorably with london, very favorably with, with most major -- gillian: with chicago? lson: overall in terms of the energy, in terms of the dynamism, in terms of the

environment for business. i look at singapore in a different way. when the ambassador talked about management, i heard someone the other day asking he, they said, listen -- in 1960, there were two island nations that each started off run by a 30-year-old lawyer, and they described, one of which was singapore, as being in a, swamp, nothing there, and the other was cuba, which had this vibrant economy, and of course castro, 30 years old, and happened took what one and look what happened to the other. a lot of it was just a really good management. gillian: certainly the environmental issues are critical. one of the things you are involved with is trying to bring green technologies to china, and one of the facts that leapt out at me, an astonishingly high

proportion of a missions around the world comes from construction, from the creation of cities and places like china, which has been a key issue. would you like to jump in for a second? i wanted tohan: throw into the ring this thought. peter schwartz says that by the world will be urban, and a very well-known british geographer said that by the end of the century, the whole world will be urban. the rural countryside will be urban. you will have second-tier cities, third tier cities, fourth tier cities, bringing urban functions to the rural areas. does that help, or does that not help, in greening, greenhouse gases? sec. paulson: whether it helps or hurts, it is a fact.

so, it is going to be having cities be livable. cities that are livable for people, made for people, not just cars. just takingis that, china as an example and building thatat gillian said, 40% of carbon emissions come from buildings every last five years, and half of all new buildings have gone up in china. where will the big benefits come from? a lot will come from energy efficiency. talkingt is done right, about energy-efficient buildings, industrial processes, that's where a lot of the low hanging fruit is. but so much of this is about rolling out new clean

technologies in scale on a cost-effective basis in the developing world. where's the money going to come from? it's not going to come from government. government has to create the conditions to bring the private capital there. so there's a lot to be learned from what we have seen, experiments and things going on in cities all around the world. for instance, in china, the -- my institute is a think and do tank, focused on two things in particular, one of of beijing,s region tianjin, and hebei, the political center of china. it is huge in terms of the population. so it is a big population center, big, big industrialization. very dirty air.

china is focusing on this to be the pilot for rolling out their transformation to a lower-carbon economy, into a new economy, so the work they are doing there, and part of it is energy efficiency, part of it is transportation, part of it is getting renewables on the grid, and another thing i am working on, we are working on, is green finance. because china is president of the g 20 this year, and they are working on models for green finance. the reason i think it is so important is that those models might not only be very important in china, but can be used throughout the developing world. gillian: so we need innovative technology and innovative sources of finance as well. what i think we are at risk of forgetting here is the dynamic that drives this,

because we certainly -- we all agree, strong, directed management is supplemental to change. ms. jowell: in the u.k., most of europe, most of the u.s., that is cut across by the messy business of politics, which so often means that, you know, decisions on big infrastructure projects are crying out to be taken, but they become paralyzed by the inability to broker a political agreement, a political consensus, and so i think that we can be highly prescriptive about what cities need, but don't let's forget that we have drive the management process to secure change, but also look after the politics at

the same time. gillian: so how do we cope with democracy in a city? certainly an issue chicago is grappling with. i would like to bring in gov. paribatra right now. you are in many ways emblematic of the problem in the emerging markets. you say you officially have 5 million people, but it is probably closer to 10 million people, reflecting a boom in urbanization that is quite dramatic. twourrent projections, thirds of the world's population will live in cities by 2050, and if you extrapolate you end up with everyone living in cities soon. how unearthed the you, in bangkok -- how on earth do you, in bangkok, cope with the sudden expansion? do you have the ability to execute decisions quickly, or are you being upended by messy politics? could you copy what secretary paulson says about green technology? gov. paribatra: for a long, long time, bangkok florist by itself

-- flourished by itself. economyded our planning, with very little legal power given to the city. 30 years ago, a new law was passed and we began to put things right. -- many waysways w we have been able to address the challenges that have arisen over the last 30 years, and the challenges we inherited from the period before that. we perhaps have benefited from the 30e continuity in years since the law was passed. there have been only six governors,, while t--

while there have been 20 changes of government. gillian: so you have had -- they changed 40 times, and you only changed seven times. gov. paribatra: but still, amend the law because the world has changed. we need more legal capacity to deal with problems, and intro ducing green technology is difficult, but we are trying our best. a bigcal contraint is constraint. bangkok pay 70% of the nation's xes, but from the

government we get less than 0.7% of the national budget. gillian: that sounds like a bad deal. gov. paribatra: in the last 20 years, the national budget has ine up four times, while absolute terms the money we get from the government remains exactly the same. gillian: imagine tomorrow you said, ok, i am governor of bangkok and i want to deal with the environmental problem. could you in theory talk to secretary paulson or other people and just develop a scheme green finance and implement it? do you have that power, or are messy local politics getting in your way? is democracy the problem, or is the national government impeding what you do? gov. paribatra: we talk to different people. we are allowed to engage in agreements. i do not engage in tribal

politics. th threead to work wi governments in the last seven years, and on the whole they have been reasonable. own waywe can go our in this sort of things. the first carbon emissions reduction plan by a government agency. the first one started in 2007, and now we're starting the second plan, a 20-year plan. gillian: there is a model in london as well. es willell: some polici be initiated and have their origin at a very local level, a

community level. some will be determined by the national government, the city implementer. the the important thing is to be pretty focused on the small number of policies that can be transformational, a nd that you as a city government have the power to deliver. sec. paulson: i would echo what has just been said. i think the issues everywhere i look are political. not just in democracies. u.s., i'll make two comments. your comment about infrastructure. in the u.s., we all know we need

massive investment in infrastructure, and again, it's not, the government does not have the money to do everything that needs to be done. how do you attract private capital? the issues we have are the multiple regulations and delays and political risk that makes it i attractive investment, so t's very hard. you talk about building high-speed rail, building the kind of public grid we should have in the united states. is aneople say, china authoritarian government, and i call it the emperor syndrome. they say, you know the president, she didn't think, why jinping, what you just asking to get it done? you look at the diffuse

decision-making in china and the power devolved to cities on one hand, and on the other, the cities do not really have a sustainable system of municipal finance in china, and mares do not have real budget authority. they have to take somebody's land and go to it and use it, you know, to finance investment and infrastructure. that's not sustainable. they need massive tax reform, major tax reform, and that's very difficult to get, politically, in china. se there ar so there are also subissues. they don't have the national bureaucracy they need. the president is trying to modernize the government. they don't have a legal system to enforce the environmental laws. so they need to start using environmental measures to, to assess mayors in terms of their

job performance. everywhere i look, i think these issues are issues of management capacity, also political issues. unfortunately, a lot of the things that need to be done are politically unpopular. gillian: except in singapore, which has this very holistic model where essentially it is small enough to be run as a simple democracy. there isr chan: something to be said about continuity of government. i would like to pick up the point also about everything being political, and mares do not have enough resources, do not have the power. i'm not sure the answer is to give mayors that much more power. it's a problem in a country, you know? 10 cities doing very well and you enhance the power of every mayor, you will

have 10 warlords before you know it. i can see the center jealously guarding some power, but i have to say that mayors have demonstrated. they learn from each other. the mayors have done a very good job of learning from each other and inspiring each other. mayors in the u.s. have a lot of power, and they get things done. ne of thely, i think o strong as parts about the u.s. system, with exception to some of the way fiscal things have been run in our system,. . gillian: spending time in washington usually makes me feel like i want to jump off the nearest tall building, but spending time on what is happening in the local areas, municipal regions, cities, is wildly inspiring because you have these petri dish

experiments all over showing different ways of governance. i will open to audience questions in just a minute, but before i do, the question that arises in my mind from hearing you talk, hearing that mayors can sometimes get things done more effectively than national governments, or they are more stable than national governments is, should we be asking cities to play a bigger role on the global stage? should cities be, eventually, involved in setting foreign policy, or trying to almost circumvent the national governments to create collections? in london right now, there's quite a lot of people in london who would like to succeed if there were -- succeed if there there -- secede if were a brexit. paulson: as somebody not carrying water on one side or the other, they are different systems. there's different forms of

federalism. different medical systems. to me -- political systems. the point that is overwhelming is that cities are where the action is going to take place, so there is a huge role, whether mayors like it or not, there is a huge role just d inanaging cities, an almost every city i can think of, there's a huge role in terms of the environment, and there is no doubt they do that. there is a huge role in terms of making the city competitive and canness, so again, we argue about whether we should give cities more power or not. i am much more focused on where we should create the models, because that is where so much action will take place. even if the policies are set at the national level, they will be implemented in many cases at the

when youthat is where, are dealing with crime, preventing terrorism, dealing the training,, businesses working with cities -- i just see this as being huge. again, come back to cities needing to create models. about,ell: this question should cities be free to develop a foreign policy, really, it forgets the order, which is functions artain national government has to discharge. london the -- i'm sure, is the city i know best in the world. you could certainly argue the

case and described london's foreign policy, which is by and large pro-european, outward inking, pro-immigration, and favor of utilizing the links with countries like india, like china. so, i think that is fine. but it is very important not to forget that the electorate, and mares are elected, the electorate -- mayors are elected, the electorate will judge a mare by his or her ability to do what they need to do for their city. so you can have very grandiose foreign policy and lose an election, if you have not built the homes people need an improved the quality of infrastructure. are coming back to this, it is

cuomo-ish, you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. there has to be a practical and clearly managed -- gillian: so do you think somebody likes that he can't -- khan, the new mayor of london, was correct in saying that the u.k. should remain -- ms. jowell: absolutely. look at the businesses in london, which speak with virtually one voice on the importance of european investment. he was absolutely right to share party inm with the doing that. this is an issue of national concern, not now or party politics. gillian: would you go out and be an ambassador for thailand, not

just bangkok? while theytra: very littlee is time to engage in international diplomacy. it difficult to travel. people here in chicago, in bangkok will start asking, where's the governor, why isn't he here trying to drain water from the streets? [laughter] gillian: so we will watch the weather forecast in bangkok. gov. paribatra: that doesn't mean we don't engage in any diplomacy at all. we have good relationships with different cities. but that's one thing. it is a totally different thing to engage in international

diplomacy on a sustained basis. ibassador chan: fully agree with everything that has just been said, but i would say that cities do, mayors do can do some type of diplomacy. they do it for trade missions. i know when bill clinton was governor, he went to taiwan. chirac when he was mayor of paris went to japan quite a few times. so they try to get investment and so on. to some extent, it is foreign policy, but not foreign policy the way it touches on security and strategy. but as an ambassador in washington, i'm quite intrigued imposedtakoma park

sanctions on myanmar, way above what the united states was proposing. and boston as well. so cities were imposing sanctions -- takomador chan: and park in maryland. i was quite intrigued. how could this be? there you are. gillian: that is part of the federal spirit of america, and the diversity. ulson: it is becoming much, much more intense, with capital being as mobile as it is. it's amazing how competitive businesses are.

mayors and governors, that's a big part of their job. it's becoming more intense, more difficult. so you will find mayors fighting to bring business, or being big protectionists, trying to protect dying industries. gillian: on that note, i have to if the u.k.you, does vote for brexit, does london lose its global perch? ms. jowell: well, let's have that doesn't happen. [laughter] i think brings it would be damaging to london's economy -- brexit would be damaging to london's economy. gillian: what probability do you give to brexit write now? ms. jowell: i think we will vote to remain, but the important thing is to vote to remain

conclusively, so the issue is settled for the next generation. gillian: i think if secretary paulson had a vote, i know which way he would be voting. sec. paulson: i could not agree more. london is a center for global business. it is the global financial center. it would be devastating, and i do not think it will happen. gillian: i hope you are -- ms. jowell: i hope you are right, but many political protections have been upended this year. sec. paulso gillian: let's have questions from the audience. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself. it would also be courteous to keep your question very short. i believe we have some microphones roving in the audience. if you wish to direct it to a an individual perso, please let

me know. if not, i will direct it myself. any questions for our panel? a question back there. the international institute for strategic studies. i have heard very interesting things about global north, developed world cities. i would like to know, where do global cities from developing countries, especially those facing profound violence and dysfunction, like rio de janeiro, where i come from -- they aspire to be global cities, and they are seen as global cities. so, can they be global cities, even though they face high levels of violence, criminal violence, and several deep problems that do not affect cities like chicago and new york? paulson: you don't see

violence in chicago? [laughter] gillian: tragically, given what has happened so far this year, that's not -- secretary paulson, would you like to comment on the issue of how you combat violence, and can you be a true global city if you are -- sec. paulson: my comment aside, i think people, the violence in know,o, which is, you very sad, is not in the areas where business is operating, and it has not really affected. but it is a huge problem. in the i think developing world that there will be true global cities? the answer is, you bet. when you look at, so step back a minute.

the world is changing, when you look at where growth is coming , you look at oecd countries and the percentage of the global economy, 10 or 20 years ago, what they had now and what they will do in the future. the economic weight is shifting other parts of the developing world. so the idea, people think that ngdu, are beijing, che not going to be right along with hong kong, outstanding global cities, don't understand what's happening. it right, they

will be important economic drivers, but for them to get it right, china needs a new economic model, and they are going to need -- they are not they areh crime there, dealing with terrible pollution issues, dealing with other really serious issues in terms own formg with their ofimmigration, in terms having access to education and health care. , i thinki think that your question when you look at latin america, different places in africa, you look at what's going to happen throughout the developing world, and cities springing up and becoming 3 million, 5 million population

cities overnight, this is something we have to be very cognizant of. in terms of what it does to our global ecosystem, what it does to our global economy. such an i think this is important question. reaction -- cities to not become global cities simple by asserting they are global cities. second, the fear of crime, neighborhoods where crime is a factor in everyday life, which i represented in my years in parliament, such neighborhoods, makes the outward looking self confidence that comes with being a global city almost impossible,

which is why mayors that make tackling crime, bringing down crime their number one priority are likely to be successful in transforming their cities. i think the third thing i would beingth the rio olympics, 35 days away, is that i greatly respected the ambition of the international olympic committee, and i know we will be talking about big events, mega-events over the course of the conference and the part that say have to play. olympics that the rio will be a huge success, but obviously they have not come without a price in disruption, unrest, and so forth, by the local community living with

this, the uncertainty, crime, disruption, to their lives day by day. i think you have absolutely, if you like, registered a question at the heart of what we mean by global cities, and what we have to do, what leadership is required in order to create a global city. gillian: we have a very different question from the electronic connection. does naturalization of immigrants play in singapore? that's a question which had indications for immigrant policy in many cities around the world. ambassador chan, would you like to comment on the role of naturalization of immigrants in singapore? singapore is a:

very open society. we are so open about increasing our population through immigration, and our immigration migration from the rural country to the city. we give visas, so you can control immigration, and we have been very good about opening our ares, because singaporeans not replacing themselves. 1.2 is our birthright. -- birth rate. in singapore today, one out of every four on the streets is not a signaporean. naturalized to be a citizen, but like most cities elsewhere, we are receiving some political backlash from too many immigrants. open, we areemain

staggering that openness, in other words controlling it. a verynts play productive role in our society sper.elp singapore pro gillian: in a world where many singaporeans are not having babies. a similar problem in western europe. any other questions from the audience? a question down there. just a few more minutes. >> thank you very much. my question is, none of you from the various cities you represent are talking about the transformational power that we are seeing in things like data, sensors. rahm emanuel is one of the most mayors in the world. while i know there is a panel

on this later, it seems so core. i'm interested in what you think about data, and how that is changing what is possible in the cities you are representing. ambassador chan: everyone will that datas panel plays a major role, and how we use data and other informatics is crucial in managing the problems of the city. is ony not every city that level. when i think of conductivity and global city, global city's thriving on connectivity because of the connectivity -- a city is a global city, and that tonectivity must now move

digital connectivity. the footprint of influence is extremely important. governor, how do you use data in bangkok? do you have the opportunity to do that? gov. paribatra: we are developing a database that will assist us in tax collection and other areas, like public health services and looking after the elderly. it is very much still a work in progress. but the importance of data is recognized. ms. jowell: i think the use of an openo allows conversation between the leadership of cities and the people of the city, which is why

it is important that the data is trusted. the second thing is, transformational change does not come without inconvenience, and asking people to behave takerently, you know, to their car less often, to take the bus more, to walk more, all these things, data can be a powerful mediator in providing the evidence base on which that behavior change is carried. paulson: what has been a huge eye-opener for me, the paulson institute sponsors a u.s.-china ceo council on sustainable urbanization, and we have really big companies, tim cook from apple, doug mcmillan

from walmart, mary barra from general motors, and on the chinese side, alibaba and so on, instance, it has blown me away, looking at what ibm is doing in china, helping them track and be able to predict pollution. all these companies, the technology they bring if you are -- the technology i see in china in terms of managing the power on the great, this -- the grid, this is bringing all kinds of capabilities. i think that is a huge tool for mayors. still, i do think no matter how much of a tool that is, so much

of that constraint comes down to put ago constraints. getting support from the voters to do the things and do really difficult things. you are right on. but the reason we did not of me, it is, in terms am not a big gain expert. gillian: there's always a problem of those pesky politics. i did enjoy the debate. thank you very much indeed. over the next couple of days, we will be picking up many of these themes and discussing them in a lot more detail, whether it is data management, the issue of the olympics, other big event and how they impact an economy. violence, a big issue, tragically even in chicago. issue on income

inequality, on urban design. we are looking at questions of culture. a whole range of these will be discussed. it's harder to screw up a national government than a city. it's easier to make them are quickly and using really dynamic for the future then for -- thank you very much, indeed. [applause] >> democrat tim kaine is the latest member of congress to be -- watch the interview

--6:30 and then celebrate watch on c-span. much of the focus is on defense department spending. it will be the first bill under new house rules from republican leadership limiting the number of amendments. we learned more about the new amendment process and legislative agenda from majority leader kevin mccarthy and minority whip steny hoyer in their weekly exchange on the house floor. you, mr. speaker m i'm pleased to yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader for the information regarding the schedule. mr. mccarthy: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman is yield -- for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will neat at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. members are advised that later votes than normal are possible on thursday and to keep their travel plans flexible. no votes are expected in the house on friday. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 5053, preventing the i.r.s. abuse and protecting free speech act, sponsored by representative roskam this commonsense bill prohibits the i.r.s. from collecting toe nor

information which has been used by the i.r.s. to improperly target tax exempt organizations. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 5293, the f.y. 2017 defense appropriation bill, sponsored by representative rodney frelinghuysen. we expect a large number of amendments on this bill so members are reminded to keep their travel schedules flexible at the end of next week. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. this week or today we considered a third appropriation bill. it was a structured rule, which is not uncommon on both sides of the aisle, to have a structured rule. but next week the gentleman has announced the defense appropriation bill. i'm wondering whether or not that will be an open rule so that amendments will be able to

be offered by members without constraint of being limited? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. to answer the gentleman's question, yes, that will come under a structured rule so members will be able to offer amendments. but before the rules committee. and have the debate on the floor. for the passage of the bill. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. does the gentleman mean by ructured rule that it will simply require amendments to be filed as of a certain time but there will be no restriction on amendments that will be in order? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. structured rule, exactly the same as we've done structured rules always before. amendments will be presented to the rules committee, be debated and then brought to the floor for a vote on the bill. mr. hoyer: just to -- thank you very much. but to further clarify, my understanding therefore is a --

the leader expects the rules committee to choose which amendments will be made in order on the bill, is that accurate think? yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, it will be a very fair, wide-open process, just in the rules committee, looking at which bills. those that have not been able to be offered already in committee, where these bills have gone through subcommittee, full committee, with amendments being offered, and then it will be brought to the floor, so we can get the work done and move a bill forward. mr. hoyer: i understand what the gentleman is saying. and it appears to me that it is an abandonment of the speaker's and others' representations that when appropriation bills are brought to the floor they'll be brought to the floor with an open rule, or a rule that will allow any and all amendments that seek to be offered by members on both sides of the aisle to be offered. from the gentleman's

explanation, i believe that is not the case and a deviation from the announced policy at the beginning of the year, it seems to me, mr. leader, madam speaker, that it's a pragmatic udgment that some amendments are making it difficult on your side of the aisle. someone who's been here for some period of time, that's been my experience, when we were in the majority, that your side under open rules offered a lot of very difficult amendments that we had to confront. the maloney amendment obviously was a difficult amendment for you to confront on your side and led to the defeat of apparently one of the -- your bills, the energy and water bill, which failed on this floor. but would i not be correct in saying this is a policy that's now being pursued that is different from that which was represented at the beginning of the year where the floor would

be open to any and all amendments and would be considered by the house on their merits? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman knows, he had sat in this position that i have today as majority leader in the past, the gentleman knows of his history of what he brought bills to the floor and in which manner in which they did. but if i could be frank with my friend, i'm a little disappointed. this is not a place to play politics. this is not about one amendment. we have a process for amendments for members that are serious about making a passionate, making an argument for a bill, not to kill a bill, and not to have an amendment pass and an entire side of the aisle then vote against it. what we are bringing forth is a

process that the american people want to see. that they want to see ideas get brought, debated, and moved forward. if you look at the appropriation process in the senate, they have amendments that go through. if the gentleman wants to go back and recite history of the number of bills that were open here and under his leadership, i'm more than welcome to do that. but we should be honest with one another. if you want to offer an amendment and you want to debate the bill and you want to make the bill, in your view, better, i would suspect that if you win an amendment, you'd vote for the bill. you have a long history here. that's really probably the history that you remember as well. i want to see the work get done. so any ideas that get brought forth in committee, they are

debated. they are offered and they are voted on. ideas will get brought forth further as the bill comes brought an amendment to the floor, so be it. but we're not going to sit back with people who want to play politics on the outside to play politics on the inside. i just expect more. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. of course, 130 of his members voted against that bill. 130 of his members rejected that bill. i'm hard pressed to think that the majority leader believes that our no votes were political and his no votes were principled. that defies logic from my standpoint. the fact of the matter is that bill lost because your members didn't support it. you have 247 members, mr. majority leader, and i do remember being majority leader. and very frankly, i remember

getting 218 democrats for almost every bill we brought to the floor. and so we passed them with our votes. and if 130 of your members had not voted against your own bill, it would have passed. and there should be no, madam peaker, misrepresentation or misinformation about how seriously mr. maloney cared about his amendment. none whatsoever. and in point of fact, it enjoyed ultimately the majority of support on this floor. but i will tell the gentleman, i've been here for some time, he's correct on that, and i do offer amendments from time to time to improve bills that even as improved i don't like. so the final analysis, although i've improved them and been successful in adopting amendments, i still do not think the bills are appropriate to pass and go into law.

this conversation started with the fact that we need to be able to offer ideas. very frankly, i understand the gentleman's position, but today we just voted on two bills that aren't going anywhere, sense of congress, that you're not going to bring to the floor. they have no chance of passage. what did you want to do? you wanted to play politics. i don't mean you personally, and, madam speaker, but it was a political effort solely to bring two bills to the floor, some sense of congress, both of which i voted against, because i thought they were playing politics, and so the accusation somehow that we are playing politics because we offer amendments that we care deeply about, that we want to see no discrimination allowed in our bills, and that we want to defeat those constraints on an executive order says to people

who do business with the federal government, you can't discriminate against people, i will tell my friend, yes, we're going to continue to try to do that. of course on this last bill, we were not allowed to do that. we were shut down. and shut up. and precluded to vote on that particular piece of legislation. so when i tell my friend that this session started with a pledge for open rules on appropriation bills, i understand the gentleman's problem. we had structured rules when we were in charge as well. we had not made any great representation about open rules. therefore we too wanted to get the business of the house done and, yes, i remember well 2007, when we were confronted with filibuster by amendment. and at some point in time, after 10 bills had been very

difficult to pass, on the last two bills we did have a structured rule. but i tell my friend that i hope that he will accord to mr. maloney or others the sincerity of their objectives and notwithstanding the fact that their amendment is adopted and articulate what is i think is proper policy for our country, that is not to discriminate, everybody in our country apparently doesn't believe that, but mr. maloney does, and i want to make it very clear that he was very sincere in that amendment. those of us who voted for it were very sincere in that amendment. it was not politics. it was values. i want to congratulate the majority leader, moving on, on his work on puerto rico. that was a difficult issue for us both. difficult issue for our caucuses. difficult issue for the executive department. we worked together, we got a bill done that certainly was

not our favorite. it included a lot of stuff in there that we didn't like. but i will tell you, we didn't play politics on that. we only lost 24 slow thes. -- votes. on a bill that was largely constructed by your side of the aisle in terms of some of the issues unrelated per se to restructuring of the debt, which was the intent of the bill. i want you to know, mr. leader, you and i have a good relationship, i have great respect for you, we're going to intend to try to work together on issues like that that are difficult but necessary for the american people. toward that end, can the gentleman tell me what the tatus of the zika issue is with reference to getting resources as quickly as possible to confront this challenge to our country's health? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: thank you for yielding. i do want to thank the gentleman for his work on the puerto rico crisis. this is something that we

worked together on very early, from all sides, making sure that we protected the taxpayers from a bailout and i think we met all criteria for helping puerto rico move forward and protecting the taxpayers. the gentleman is correct on zika. we want to make sure funding is there, as the gentleman knows, there is currently funding and as the gentleman knows we have passed a bill on zika and we have named our conferees. it's my understanding that the senate is just now naming the conferees. i am very hopeful that we can get that conference done very quickly and brought back to the floor. as of now, i would -- i had met with the director of c.d.c. just on our -- when we debattered on the district work period. there's -- departed on the district work period. there's enough resources currently but we need to get our work done as rapidly as possible. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. obviously this is an emergency confronting our country. dr. frieden of c.d.c., a doctor

of the n.i.h. and so many others have raised this as a critically important issue for us to confront and confront now. so that i would join the majority leader in whatever efforts are necessary to accelerate this process and give to the administration and our health officials the resources they need to protect the american people. madam speaker, in closing, and i will certainly yield to the majority leader, i rise to say that we have lost a great american, perhaps one of the most famous americans in the world. in muhammad ali. muhammad ali was for a portion of his life reviled for the decisions he took. but through his life he reflected a commitment to could e that all of us

well follow. an example of, even in the light of extraordinary things from his fellow citizens said, this is what i believe, this is where i stand, and i am prepared to take the consequences. many of us believe he was probably the greatest fighter that ever lived. and as he fought so successfully in the ring, he fought successfully for his principles and his convictions. and i know that the american people and the house of representatives would reflect the respect and affection for a great athlete, a great human being, and a great american. if my friend wanted to make a comment, i will yield to him. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for recognizing the life of muhammad ali. .

he touched those who met him and those who did not. and there are so many stories out there what he was able to do and stand up for what believed. i think so many times when you look at his life from where he rows to and where he stayed rooted in, his belief in this country, his belief and the courage to fight for what he believed in. there was a quote he made, i just read it today, it was put up by forbes as the quote of the week. but he once said, he who is not courageous to take risks will not accomplish anything in life. he took risks and had the courage to stand up. and one great foundation of this country provides the individuals the right to do that, to challenge others and to live a life that is very full.

and he lived his life to the fullest and reached many and to the athletic world, he reached the height and to reaching others, he did the same in his personal life as -- c-span'suzanne "washington journal." rector withobert the heritage foundation and representatives from the center of american progress. also, acting director barbara vin discusses the iranian nuclear deal more than one year after the announcement was made. shirley, author of "

and the revolution," role of reagan's election. be sure to watch "washington journal" on sunday morning. join the discussion. monday marks the 50th anniversary of the 1966 supreme court ruling of miranda v. decision that led to the miranda warning when police make arrests. next we will take a look at the case in our new series "landmark influence that it is had on cities around the world. ♪ businessrsons having

before the honorable supreme court of the united states should give their attention. announcer: landmark cases is c-span's series produced in nationalon with the constitution center. number 759, miranda versus arizona. roe against wade. >> quite often, many of our take,ons that the court many were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million people who need to live together. >> good evening and welcome to

the "landmark cases" series. tonight, case number 11 out of 12. this was a 1966 case that helped revolutionize policing in america, miranda versus arizona. >> you are under arrest. you have the right to an attorney. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. >> deal even know the miranda know the do you even miranda rights? >> yes. >> do you understand your rights? >> yes, he explained them to me, just like they do on television. >> you have the right to an attorney. >> anything you say may be used against you. >> you have the right to remain silent. you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

you have the right to speak to an attorney. host: as you can see, miranda rights became part of our national culture. we are going to learn more about them tonight. we have the president and ceo of the national constitution center. and for you regular viewers, you know he is our partner in this series. he has written several books about the supreme court. thanks for being back. thank you. >> we also have a former federal judge for the district of utah from 2002 to 2007. he also served as deputy attorney general and is now a professor of criminal law procedure at the university of utah. what are the constitutional issues in the miranda case? >> maranda tries to settle a question that has been around the country for several hundred years.

the question is, how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when they are trying to get information and what rules will dictate whether a confession can be used in court? >> what is it about this case that made it a landmark? >> it transformed the culture. look at all the tv shows. i was trying before the show to see if i could do it by heart. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. you have the right to consult with an attorney. if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. that is so simple to the culture. when chief justice rehnquist affirmed maranda, he said it has come to be accepted by the culture. how many cases can you say that about? host: in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, let's talk about policing in this country.

we were talking about how we are currently in a debate in this country about policing tactics. why is that? >> what we saw in the country was a significant improvement in policing. in the 1930's, the third degree, putting pressure and threats to get confessions was a widespread tactic. in the 1940's and 50's, those tactics started to disappear. then the question was, all right, if question is an going to be used in the form of physical threats, our officers going to use psychological tacticand techniques, and what kind of regulation should there be on those? those are the issues maranda wrestles with. >> looking at the country at that time, were there any regional aspects to this? cases where for example blacks in the south had more problems with prosecution. >> there was a huge debate about police brutality and it focuses on the south. as paul said, in the 1930's,

confession had to be voluntary. 1930's, the courts decided that confession had to be voluntary. you could not literally beat a confession out of people. since 1961 and a report finding widespread police brutality in the south -- there is still a debate about how much that is going on. the warren court issues a decision in 1960 one, basically applying exclusionary rules. 1963, it says you have to have a lawyer present during police interrogation. so it's using the fourth and fifth amendment to address what it perceives to be a real problem with police brutality in the south, and that is the background against which this case is decided.

host: we will spend more time on the warren court makeup and why they took this on, but let's tell the maranda story. who is he? >> you have to look not just at maranda, and also the fact that he was a victim. convicted, arrested, and had done so -- and had been done so numerous times. i think it's fair to say he was a drifter who did not have established employment or a place to work. on the night in question, he at bducted a young woman by knifepoint and raped her. so the thing going on simultaneously with miranda committing this crime is that violent crime is skyrocketing in america. whether it is the warren court or something else responsible for that, that is part of the backdrop as well. host: the woman's name was

patricia, she was 18 years old, on the night of the attack, she was leaving a movie theater in phoenix, arizona, and on the way home she was kidnapped, assaulted, robbed, and then driven back to her home. it was a very serious crime. how did things proceed from there? >> the next week there was a robbery and witnesses see a car that seems to belong to miranda. it was at a bus stop. the police check out the car and they go to miranda at the place where he is living and his girlfriend basically fingers him , and he is taken down to the station. there is a dispute about whether or not he is actually told his rights. the fbi did not read rights of -- at the time. but essentially, he signed a confession saying i didn't and he is convicted. and then he claims he was -- i did it and he is convicted. and then he claims he was never read his rights. host: and we visited the phoenix police department and what is

really fascinating is that officer isrresting still alive and he is the very much with us and he is now part of national history. he tells us a story from the phoenix police department's point of view. let's watch. detective: when she first looked at the lineup, she said it looks like the number one guy. the number one guy was ernie miranda. and i asked her, "are you sure?" she said, "well, it looks like him, i am not sure." maybe if i heard his voice i could make a positive id, and i didn't say anything. we went back in the room. i waited a while.

do?" asked me, "how did i "you didn't do so good, ernie." he said i had better tell you about it then. i said that would be a good idea. and he did. he told us about the kidnapping, assault, and robbery. after he told us, i said would you sign a written confession which says at the beginning of the form i did this statement voluntarily without coworker and threats, promises of immunity, no -- coercion, threats, or promises of immunity, knowing my legal rights. the writing was excellent and the spelling was accident. and the description of the act was accurate. this is the entrance into the old city jail. maranda would have been brought in here and he would have been processed just like any other prisoner. he would have been searched and shown his new quarters over here. we have four identical tanks.

this particular tank is where he was kept. it's what we call the felony tank. he would have been booked into here. it may have been a week. it may only have been a couple of days. >> what is it that right off the bat lead the system to get interested in this? >> it's almost a perfect test case because this is not a case where someone was beaten to get a confession. it's one where the police used some tricks. they said she identified you. you might as well tell us what happened. psychological pressure was brought to bear. one of the other interesting things is that miranda ends up radically changing the rules.

in 1963, when this interrogation took place, there was not a single precedent in america that would support throwing that confession out. when chief justice warren another started to get interested in this issue, that changed. >> what happened to him? >> he was challenged on sixth amendment grounds because the court said he had a right to counsel during interrogation. >> he was convicted on both. yeah, so he was convicted and sentenced to 20-25 years on robbery and kidnapping and it was to serve all concurrently in june of 1963. but then we go to the challenge. >> we go to the appellate court of arizona, the constitutional

challenge is the sixth amendment. the only question was whether there was a voluntary violation of the sixth amendment. >> so, the sixth amendment says what? >> that you have the right to effective assistance of counsel. and the argument that miranda's lawyers are making is that when he was talking to the detective he did not have a lawyer. he should have at that point. the problem with that argument is that for 170 years of american history, you get a lawyer once you go to court. the fifth amendment says you have the right not to be compelled to be a witness

against yourself. witnessing occurs in court, so under the precedents that existed, this is not the problem at all. and that is why the lawyers are trying to get to the supreme court. >> we keep trying to explain how the process works. so he did not have his appeal upheld in the arizona supreme court. how did it make its way to the federal supreme court? >> you have to file a petition. the supreme court has to agree to take the case. there was a dramatic, related case called the gideon case. there is a wonderful book called "gideon's trumpet" that everyone should read if they haven't yet. gideon is the defendant and says i was wrongly convicted because i didn't have a lawyer for my defense and the court, overturning the previous rule, says you are entitled to

counsel. they brought in a lawyer call john frank who clerked for justice black and was a yale law professor. distinguished constitutional scholar. and they brought in john flannery, who could argue very well. once you get the big guns like that, the supreme court gets interested. >> john flannery served as counsel for anita hill. >> very distinguished lawyer. miranda goes from someone in the bowels of the interrogation room to someone who now has the most high-powered legal team imaginable and is before the supreme court. >> we have this tweet. comments about that? >> the question is what kind of liberty we should uphold. for 170 years, there was no rule that the statement of the type maranda was making would be inadmissible in court. -- miranda was making would be inadmissible in court.

the problem with miranda, frankly, is a go so far, the pendulum swings so far in the direction of protecting the accused that the women who are attacked are given short shrift. people like patricia are given a short -- in this position. said at the time the fbi was routinely given stuff like this. century,turn of the having been given similar warnings. we are going to have a good about how they used

the fifth and sixth amendments, and we could talk about the history of the fifth amendment. >> the problem with miranda is that it isn't just reading a few words off a card. the problem is what i would call the exclusionary aspects. it sets up rules that say you cannot question certain people. if you do certain things, evidence can't be used. it's all a procedural apparatus associated with miranda that frankly, today means tens of thousands of criminal cases are going unsolved every year because of procedural requirements. >> we will get back to that later on when we talk about the consequences of this and other decisions by the warren court. the last case we did in this series was from 1962, and a couple of new justices have been appointed to the court since then. how does the dynamic of the court change with these new

additions? >> fortis had literally been appointed by the warren court to represent gideon. so he is acutely interested in criminal procedure. he is an lbj supporter. he got in trouble when lbj nominated him to be chief justice advising lbj on certain matters. but he is very committed to the warren court and very deferential to congress, pro-law enforcement, and he is in dissent in miranda. there was a balance on both sides. essentially, the most striking thing about the war in court is look at all the former judges and politicians on this court. hugo black, a former police court judge in alabama, saw the third degree firsthand. there is another great biography your viewers have to see, called -- it's a great biography of

hugo black that describes how as a lawyer he is trying and hispanic defendant, and he brings the defendant up and closes the shades so that the defendant looks kind of menacing. he says i just want the jury to take a look at that man. later, he regrets that tactic. he saw how the system could be abused. tom clark, a former politician as well, and most important, of course, we have to talk about earl warren who was the district attorney. he has prosecuted these people. he accused some of them in a previous case that was about how defendants can be sentenced for a huge amount of time because of procedural factors beyond their control. these are not ivy league judges. they are practical politician -- ivy tower judges. they are practical politicians who understand how the system

works. >> his own father was murdered in a robbery. put that into context about the views he brings to the court. >> i think he headed on the head. there were a large number of politicians on the supreme court at this time. frankly, in my view, and in many others, they had not successfully made the transition from politician to have their own views, impose those use, and pass legislation. now, shifting into a judicial role where their duty is to interpret the law, not make the law, when they see something about a police interrogation, politicians can pass laws and regulations and do different

things, and five judges on the court were ready to do the same thing through supreme court decision making. that is one of the legacies of the decision-making approach, not to look at the narrow facts of the case, but to throw out some rules that the country had to follow. >> you have used the expression the third degree. where does that come from? >> the third degree has to do with beating. you take it one degree, then one more. in the context of this case, the third degree means a kind of coercive pressure that does not involve physical violence. we have to tell this story because the court tells it in the miranda decision. this is the story of john loeber. during the british star chamber, if you were a heretic, you could be summoned before the star chamber and forced to take an oath in which you promise to truthfully answer any question, even if you did not know what it would be. if you are a dissenter and asked if you were a protestant, you could lie and go to eternal damnation, as was the you -- the view at the time, you could tell the truth and be burned as a heretic.

so the dissenter said no man is bound to accuse himself. that principle is a form of the third degree that if you are called before a body and require to answer questions that no person who has human dignity should be forced to answer is what the court is trying to channel. the beatings of the 1930's which were permissible under the old standards, and now the court is trying to take this.

10 era history -- this puritan era history and say how can we honor the words of the fifth amendment today? post: we have a video of chief justice earl warren talking about the third degree. let's watch. chief justice warren: the third degree was a common thing 50 years ago. one had to watch for it very carefully to see that it was not committed. i think comparatively few law enforcement officers are addicted to the third degree and it's because the courts have deplored that kind of conduct and have said if that kind of conduct is indulged in by the police, that a man is not given a fair trial, and therefore his conviction cannot stand. certainly, that is in the interest out of the particular defendant alone, but in the

interest of everyone. >> what would you say about this? >> when you talk about the third degree, i think chief justice warren hit the nail on the head. comparatively few cases involved the third degree. the tactics had long been outlawed by the supreme court, so what you are seeing, i think sometimes when people talk about the miranda decision it's something of a bait and switch. people had been tortured to give confessions so we need the miranda rules. of course, the miranda rules aren't really designed to address those kinds of things. that had already long been abolished by the supreme court,

and the real question that we should be talking about and i think the supreme court should have been talking about more directly in miranda was the psychological tactics the officers used. >> joe paulsen on twitter rights, since the fbi had such a rule in place of the time, were loads of federal crimes and solved? >> the fbi had nothing like miranda. they had something like you have the right to remain silent and we will get you a lawyer when you go to court. miranda sort of garbled what the fbi was doing and said we will impose the same thing. but if miranda had imposed the same rules the fbi followed, i don't think it would be the most controversial criminal procedure decision in the history of the united states. but what chief justice warren did was take some rules and create a vast, exclusionary rule apparatus that throws out all kinds of confessions and imposes all kinds of prohibitions on asking even reasonable questions. >> comments? >> we will talk about what its effects were later, but the cops

came to feel that it was far less than both sides had asked for. essentially, there were two pole positions at stake. each side wanted a blanket rule that you have to have a station house lawyer -- one side wanted a blanket rule that you have to have a station house lawyer there at all times and no one can be questioned without a lawyer. the cops wanted the opposite. they wanted that once you were warned it was presumed that the statement was voluntary unless you set the magic words "i want a lawyer." when i teach law, i say if you are ever interrogated by the police, say the magic words, "i want a lawyer," because that is

when the interrogation has to stop and you are hugely empowered. we will talk later about how many confessions that led to having overturned. many people say it didn't decrease that many confessions, but warren is doing three things. first, you have to read the warning. second, if you ask for a lawyer, interrogation stops. third, if you waive the rights, it has to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and it puts the burden on the cops to prove that. >> so, he was looking for a way to address this and he told his clerks to look for cases that might fit the bill. when the cases came before the court there were four. miranda and -- talk about the other three. >> they were cases designed to provide the supreme court with a full picture of police interrogation in america. one is the one we're talking about. then there was westfield versus united states. that was a federal case and the solicitor general of the united states argued in front of the supreme court. that's their good martial coup

-- marshall -- that's thurgood marshall, who was just a few years later appointed to the supreme court, and he was arguing against miranda rules because they would affect state law enforcement agencies as well as federal law enforcement agencies like the fbi. >> so, the four cases go before the court. how does the process work? >> a lot of arguments take place over time and a lot of phenomenal lawyers argue them. in addition to thurgood marshall, tougher taylor, a great fourth amendment scholar who had been a lawyer at nara burke is arguing for the state of new york. -- at nuremberg, is arguing for the state of new york.

mostly he is concerned that if the rule is announced that it not be retroactive and free a lot of people who had already been convicted. you have to civil libertarian heroes, marshall and taylor. >> this game to the court from february through march of 1966. 10 lawyers were involved and argued more than seven hours spread out over three days. we don't see these kind of sessions very often. take a very collocated because of the number of cases and lawyers -- it got very complicated because of the numbers of cases and lawyers. talk about that. >> the fall of array of issues that had come up during police interrogation -- and one of the things that is striking about miranda in retrospect is how much it departed from the ordinary approach to judging and the ordinary approach to judicial process in this country. typically, you take the facts of the case and there are rules to

address those particular facts. but again, keeping with the idea that many of the justices were politicians wanting to announce some broad and sweeping rule, they set up the case so that it would be designed almost to a loud traditional registration -- legislation and regulation, whatever you want to call it -- to allow traditional legislation and regulation, whatever you want to call it, to come out of the issue. >> john flynn and john frank were the two lawyers with john flynn making the argument before the court for miranda. arizona's assistant attorney general gary nelson made the argument and the attorney for the national district attorneys association. anything noteworthy about the argument? paul: one of the things that's quite striking, we mentioned what a strong legal team miranda had. their team was arguing the sixth

amendment. miranda's brief doesn't argue that the fifth amendment was violated, the reason being that the fifth amendment was limited to the courtroom so the fifth amendment was not something that was the focus of the oral argument or certainly the briefing and that, we'll talk about how the decisions comes about but there is a disconnect between the arguments advanced and the decision that comes forward. host: we welcome your participation in this conversation tonight and the lines for dialing in are divided geographically. eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8900. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8901. and the facebook page has a conversation underway. three different ways to be involved, by phone, by tweet and by facebook so please join the conversation.

jeff rosen? jeffrey: just a brief response. flynn did mention the fifth amendment in oral argument. he said to justice stewart, if a man knew his rights, if he recognizes he has a fifth amendment right to ask counsel, then it's ok and that is key to overcoming inequality and coercion in a police station. paul: the next year he says when we talk about the effective assistance of counsel, you should know what i did, i briefed and argued the case entirely on a sixth amendment proposition and now the supreme court goes and decides it another way so frank himself and flynn wound up saying were we committing ineffective assistance of counsel because we were arguing one thing?

host: the questions before the court in these cases -- is a confession admissible in the court of law obtained without warnings against self incrimination and without legal counsel? and who determines whether a defend his legally waived his or her rights, what is the standard for judging whether voluntary confessions are admissible and when should an attorney be appointed for a person? so we're in the in era where the supreme court has begun recording audio of oral awments and next you'll hear a little bit from the two opposing attorneys and we'll listen to some of the case as they made it. >> the only person that can adequately advise is a lawyer.

that he had the right not to incriminate himself, that he had a right not to make any statement, that he had a right to be free of further questioning by the police department and he had a right to be represented adequately before the court and if he was indigent, the state would furnish him counsel. >> i agree with mr. justice black 100% that the fifth amendment, sixth amendment, every part of the constitution applies to everyone, poor, rich, ignorant, there is no possible basis for differentiation. i don't argue that. but miranda, i think, characteristically by the petitioner is portrayed in this light in an attempt to make something that isn't there.

host: jeffrey rosen, what did you hear there? jeffrey: he's not arguing that the confession is compelled by gun point. flynn is not claiming that so we're not talking about the third degree. squarely, both lawyers are struggling to use the sixth amendment which the court has said applies during interrogation and also the fifth amendment and they're also trying to come up with an alternative to the standard that the court already uses which is called the totality of the circumstances test. in a case called spano, chief justice warren had listed an opinion saying to look at all the characteristics of a defend, was he foreign born, did he speak english well, did he understand his rights? and it was an open ended test. that's what the lawyers there and other parts of the argument were stressing miranda wasn't well educated and didn't understand his rights but in the years since spano, the justices and society had come to believe this was just too unpredictable

to overcome the coercive pressures of the station house and that's why you hear the lawyers saying, the fifth and sixth amendments apply to everyone regardless of their station, it's not appropriate to make these case-by-case determinations and they're asking the court to come up with a bright line rule to protect all defendants. host: what did you hear? paul: i hear two arguments, one is the doctrinal argument that while this statement may not have been involuntary but there was a lot of pressure there. the problem with that argument is that for hundreds of years these statements were admitted so the supreme court is grappling with throwing out everything before and announcing a new rule. the other thing is a pragmatic concern because if you take the arguments that are being made seriously and say miranda should have had a lawyer during police interrogation, the lawyer will

say say nothing whatsoever and if you go with that route, you end up with no police interrogation in america. host: before we learn what the judges said, the court's final decision, let's listen to some of our callers. first is josh from iowa. hi, josh. caller: my question is, from what i know, it seems like chief justice warren, having been a district attorney, wanted to expand the rights in the illinois v. escobedo case. why was he so interested in expanding the rights in that case? paul: i think one of the things going to in the 1960's is the notion that criminals are a product of their environment and may not be as accountability for their decisions, they haven't gotten a high education as we heard with miranda. so against that backdrop, i think it's a perverse interest

in cheering for the underdog that somehow police officers have outwitted suspects when they come up with something that gets them to confess so that, i think, is a strange backdrop to the decision. jeffrey: the notion of chief justice warren as soft on criminals isn't convincing. this chief justice wrote terry v. ohio, one of the most pro law enforcement decisions ever written which says the cops are allowed to stop you and pat you down on reasonable suspicion without a warrant but warren did care about human dignity. he was troubled when he wrote the spano case that the guy that ended up killing someone may have been acting in self defense but according to the state rules at the time was liable for a big prison response -- sentence, so he didn't think the totality of

the circumstances test was protective enough at a time when he was troubled by police violence. he understand the third degree and understand what was going on in the south. so far from being an aclu guy who wants to stop interrogations by requiring a lawyer at all times, i think he's trying to come up with a compromise to restrain the police when he thinks it's necessary. host: braxton is up next from long beach, california. caller: my question is, miranda rights brought into play. the question was, when was f.b.i. rights and how was it presented? paul: the f.b.i. said they instructed special agents to tell people they had the right to remain silent and anything they said could be used against

them and those are the rights that were given to miranda but with respect to whether or not they could have an attorney, the f.b.i. had never done the sort of thing that was under discussion and we'll talk about in the opinion. had never done anything that said, look, if somebody says they don't want to talk, the f.b.i. has to stop asking them questions and that's the frankly radical step miranda takes and the one that's been harmful to law enforcement from they day to today. host: celeste from tulsa, you're on. caller: my question for your guest is how long did it take for this case to reach the supreme court? host: celeste, before you go, tell me about your interest in this case as a middle school student?

caller: my social studies teacher brought this up and he says if we get on, we get extra credit in the class. host: good for you for getting on and getting extra credit. thank you for participating. congratulations. jeffrey: it's wonderful to get extra credit. we know the crime occurred in 1963 and the case came down in 1966 so it took three years between the crime and the decision. host: is that a long time in the supreme court context? jeffrey: no, it seems like goldilocks, just right. host: next up is glen in freeland, michigan. caller: thank you very much, everyone. my question is about, does miranda apply to legal and illegal aliens and specifically i'm thinking about that case in san bernardino where it blurs the line between regular crime and terrorism.

if the lady was i guess was a legal alien, if she had survived and they were looking at it as a terrorist case, would miranda have applied to her specifically, for example? host: thanks for your question. jeffrey: it's a great question. to note, the question to what degree miranda applies to terrorism suspects abroad is an open question that the courts are deciding now. they haven't definitively decided whether suspects interrogated outside of the territorial united states for terrorism need their miranda rights and my understanding is that the interrogation of anyone within the united states would need to be read their miranda. paul: jeff is right on that. the miranda decision extends rights to everyone inside the united states. you can have interesting questions about what if an f.b.i. agent is overseas and how do the rights come into play in that situation. you could also have interesting questions that come up in what are called public safety situations, if there was a

ticking time bomb that a terrorist set, the supreme court has suggested that maybe in those narrow circumstances, miranda warnings may not need to be given because of the public safety concerns. host: and twitter, does miranda apply to foreign combatants on u.s. soil? paul: it depends. are we talking about a military context or a civilian law enforcement context. host: jim in california. you are on. caller: i'm a retired attorney and i began law school in autumn of 1966 and my criminal law

professor, fred inbow, at northern, known as freddy the cop, really did not like miranda. he was adamant about how dangerous it was for police work. and i just brought back that remembrance but also, judge cassell, you were talking about the court having politicians on it. i think one could say that the court now perhaps has too many judges on it and not enough perhaps people from outside the appellate court and supreme court clerk circuit. i don't really like the way it's gone in recent years. any rate, thank you. paul: he mentioned fred inbow which is really interesting. inbow had written the police interrogation manual with different techniques and tactics and so forth so i think one of the reasons professor inbow was disappointed in the miranda

decision is he discovered all of his techniques and tactics were quoted as the reason for the supreme court needing to step in and regulate police interrogation. the big irony is the miranda doesn't restrict psychological techniques inbow used so he reworked his textbook the next year and it became a best seller because after all, what better book to look at than the one cited by chief justice warren? host: springfield, virginia, you're on. caller: i just wanted to point out that the supreme court did not just rush to the exclusionary rule as their first attempt to curtail this activity by the police. there will be a series of decisions leading up to it and the court seemed to be convinced that the only way to get police to follow the rules they were laying down was to lay the incentive for them to violate the law by telling them, if you do this, we're not going to allow the evidence to be used and i think that's an important factor being glossed over. jeffrey: very important point. absolutely miranda is not coming out of nowhere. the decision from 1961 applying the exclusionary rule to the states arguably has as much or

more practical importance than miranda itself and miranda can be seen as a pro police decision, as paul says, ironically, it didn't prevent the use of trickery or deception and in some ways it inoculated the police. all you have to do is say the magic words and you can use the same interrogation manuals that chief justice warren is impressing concern about and we learn about their origin so think of all the things miranda didn't do. it didn't require the videoing of interrogations. it didn't actually substantively prevent deception or trickery for all those reasons. the court wants a bright line rule but it didn't uniformly disfavor the police. host: we can hear the continuing debate over miranda all these years over. it was a divided decision. warren, black, brennan, douglas and fortas. the minority, clark, harlan, white and stewart.

is there a backstory to how they came to the split decision in this case? paul: one of the things we have been talking about is the f.b.i. practices. chief justice warren pushing for broad regulation of the police, said, look, the f.b.i. is already administering this, it wouldn't be a problem to extend the practice to other agencies. the problem is that the f.b.i. had not been doing anything like the sorts of things that miranda opposed, not just federal agencies but every agency in the united states. host: from time to time we've heard stories about justices finding coalitions to bring them to their side. are there any good stories in the miranda case that convinced somebody to go to one side or the other in this one? do either of you know? jeffrey: i don't know. paul: i know there was some debate about and the f.b.i. warnings were included. i also know they've gone back to look at some of the draft

opinions that were written. one of the things that was added in the decision at the last minute was a statement that this was one way to regulate police interrogation but we leave it open to congress and the states, maybe they'll come up with other ways to regulate police interrogation so that compromise, at least verbally articulated or in the decision, articulated compromise, was critical to building the coalition. jeffrey: the f.b.i. warnings are quoted in the miranda decision. here's what the f.b.i. said at the time. in any person being interviewed after warning of counsel decides he wishes to consult with couple of before proceeding further, the interview is terminated, f.b.i. does not pass judgment on the ability for the person to pay for counsel. you can see paul cassell and kate stiff with a beautiful common statement about what miranda means.

constitutioncenter.org and i've got to do the plug now because it's so cool. you can read the fifth amendment on this side, you can read the fifth amendment in all of its beauty and you see this statement where professors cassell and stiff talk about what everyone agrees the text was, the history was. i think it's so inspiring that you were able to come up with a common statement and separate statements about your disagreements. that's a great place for viewers to understand the decision. host: the chief justice chose to write the opinion himself. it was 60-plus pages. and he read it aloud in the courtroom in its entirety. how often does that happen?

paul: not very often and certainly not with 60-page opinions. you can imagine it took several hours to do that but i think everyone knew when the decision came down, it was a landmark decision that would have reverberations to echo for years and years. host: and in fact the miranda rules were written into the decision so the text was really excerpted and became what we heard at the outset, used so often in police and crime dramas. here's a bit of chief justice earl warren's opinion. "at the outset, if a person in custody is subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent." what are you hearing there? paul: one of the things i think is strange about the decision is there are 50 pages of text and only until the last two pages do you get to specifically discussion about the facts of the case.

a lot of commentators have said it reads like a legislative report with an attached statute and so there's a truly legislative feel to the decision that is at odds with what most of the decisions today look like. jeffrey: i think it was true to the spirit of the fifth and sixth amendment and not think it was radical but agree it does have a legislative quality, warren says at the beginning, middle and end, this is what the rules are, to repeat, these are

the rules we want the cops to read and the fact that they seem to be taken from the f.b.i. reports and other sources but hadn't previously been part of state criminal law on a broad scale led to fierce criticism that it was, indeed, legislative, and set off a political firestorm. host: before we get to the aftermath, we should tell the rest of ernesto miranda's story. what happened to him next? he's just won this landmark case in the supreme court so what happens legally? jeffrey: he is paroled in 1972. arrested in 1974 for violations. he goes back to prison, after his release, he goes back to his old neighborhood. he actually sells miranda cards, autographing them, and makes his living and in 1976 he's playing poker in a bar, there's a fistfight, he's fatally stabbed with a knife and killed and in his pocket are found copies of the miranda warning. host: he also tried to appeal his conviction to the supreme court. was not successful, right? paul: he was reconvicted because of a confession he made to his wife, of all people, is admitted, his common law wife

and it turned out that because she was merely a common law wife, the rules of spousal privilege did not block of use of that confession so the only reason he was convicted was he gave a confession to his wife, rather than the police officers. host: here's an interesting coda to ernesto miranda's tale, killed in a bar fight with the miranda cards in his pocket and his killers, when arrested, were read the miranda rules. we have the officer you met early on, the arresting officer in the case, adding more to the story. let's listen. >> after the supreme court decision, in 1966, the various departments around the state and the country developed their own miranda warning cards based upon the decision and the cards that we have here are the original cards that we had miranda sign as a souvenir after he got out of prison. and then we had the revised cards which are below it and

that is the one in english and the one in spanish on the back. the revised cards did not require a signature. now, miranda used to get these cards from police officers and he would see in this downtown area and he would introduce himself as the famous ernesto miranda. and then he would ask officers if they had any spare cards. and they would freely give him some cards and then he would take those cards and sign them and he would try to sell them for a dollar or two. host: there is the arresting officer's story of the person who gave his name to the miranda rights.

i'm going to go back to calls and get some more of your comments and reaction and questions with this. next up is john, westchester, pennsylvania. hi, john. caller: my understanding is that you can only invoke your right to have a lawyer present when you're being interrogated so can you please clarify at what point you're being interrogated and if it can happen only in a police station or other places? paul: my students were taking their criminal procedure exam this morning and the miranda rules are triggered when someone is in custody, when they've been taken into the police station, as miranda was. typically they don't apply when someone's being questioned in they're home or on the street in the aftermath of the crime. the other part is interrogation. police officers have to be asking questions or the functional equivalent of asking questions in order to bring the miranda rules into play.

host: next is a call from brad, who is watching us in california. hello, brad. caller: i was detained for a d.u.i. stop and the officer on duty gave me the field test. i passed it. i went to the breathalizer, i passed that. he wanted to take me into the police station for a blood test. once there, i had my glasses taken away from me and i wasn't allowed to read the paper in front of him. anyway, to make a long story short, he marks it saying i refused it. he kept asking me questions, i wasn't read my miranda rights until three hours later. at what point was i supposed to be read my miranda rights? jeffrey: you don't have to be read your miranda rights to have a blood test because the court has held that blood is merely physical evidence.

we learned from the clinton impeachment investigation, we saw the president of the united states in the white house having his blood taken. he had no fifth amendment right to refuse that because of the court's holding that was not testimonial. the thing i remember from my criminal procedure class in law school was my teacher jumping up and down saying "blood, blood, blood!" and if there's nothing else to remember, it may be those words because although it seems dramatic that the police are allowed to extract blood from you without your consent because year not incriminating yourself with your own words, you don't have a fifth amendment or miranda right. host: laura from philadelphia. caller: this goes back to something that professor cassell said a while ago, and if i understand you correctly, it sounds like you're saying before

1963, 1966, police giving the third degree to suspects is worse than it is now. hasn't therein been a lot of information coming out recently about forced confessions? my understanding is that the situation hasn't improved. paul: let's talk about false confessions. one of the things about the miranda decision is the overprotection of some people and under protection of others. it overprotects professional criminals but they lawyer up and ask for an attorney and no questions can be asked of those people. on the other hand, if you're innocent, you haven't committed the crime, the first thing you do is waive your rights and you want to talk. there have been documented cases of mentally retarded persons or others who have been convinced they committed a crime and talked into false confessions. miranda doesn't do anything for innocent people.

something like videotaping might do good for innocent people but miranda, has been, i think it's fair to say, a complete disappointment for prevents false confessions. host: i don't know if you can answer the hypothetical, tom curry is a journalist. what if, would miranda decision have been issued if tom dewey-earl warren ticket had won the election? jeffrey: earl warren will not be chief justice but on the other hand we have a moderate republican president, dewey, who still might have appointed a moderate republican like warren and his great achievement was as a statesman. we talked about how he was able to bring his colleagues

together. whether you think it's legislative or an act of statesmanship, it was this practical politician from a republican party that at the time was not, you know, especially much tougher on crime than democrats were, who was able to come up with this ruling. so i think my -- as i think aloud, although there is no one like earl warren, you could imagine another moderate republican chief being appointed who might have come up with a similar decision. host: steve from tennessee, hi, steve. caller: hi. i got two questions. one, is there a statue of limitations on when somebody can file an appeal when they feel their miranda rights have been violated? i was involved in something when i was 19 years old and i was forced into silent confession. not physically, but mentally.