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. i have tried several times to

get court papers and everything else and nobody will give them to me. is there a way to do that? if so, how would i go about doing it? paul: those miranda issues have to be raised immediately at the time of trial. you cannot raise them later on. it becomes too collateral to allow it on a habeas corpus or something like that. susan: the supreme court anticipated that there would be a flood of cases that had been tried before this decision, so they put a marker down. the june 1, 13 rule. that, to me, was confusing. if it is a right, it is a right. not one set by time. paul: there were a number of appeals that were filed before

then. there were cases of murderers -- there was one case in new york where someone had knifed four or five people and killed them. that confession, which was perfectly valid when the police had obtained it, because they did not have miranda cards or rules, was thrown out. fred grant has an interesting book called "the self-inflicted wound." he said, whatever you think about the miranda decision, not applying it to prior cases created the spectacle of bloody murderers walking free. jeffrey: there are other big criminal procedure decisions that are not retroactive. remember telford taylor, the great advocate for new york.

that is the line they drew. susan: we are going to go back to the phoenix police detective talking about the impact of this decision on him, his fellow officers, and what they thought about it. let's listen. >> they thought the police had abused these individuals, taken advantage of them. therefore, the police were bad guys. in the minds of a lot of people. those people that knew the facts did not see it that way. but you have to look at the general public. so there was an impact on me. i felt like i had been put in an awkward position. that i had been somewhat -- demeaned people thought that we had abused him. the most from the conversation you could ever have, like talking to an old friend. we did everything according to the book, in my opinion. i was very surprised.

i thought, when i first heard it was going to the supreme court, i did not even know about the state supreme court having already looked at it and upheld it. i thought, i do not think we are going to lose it because i think we did a good job, in my opinion. when it turned out different than i thought it would -- as a police officer, you accept those things. if that is the way they want us to do business, that is the way we will do business. there is not much i could do. all i could do was shake, i think the supreme court made a mistake. we do the job according to what they tell us to do. sometimes, the results are negative because we have less convictions, more crime because a lot of people are turned back into society and continue to do

their evil. but hey, no skin off my nose when these guys go back to work. we will just try to catch them again. susan: a retired police detective, the arresting officer in the case that went to the supreme court, talking about the impact on his life and career. another personal story on the table. this is patrick leahy, democratic senator from virginia. at the time miranda came around, he was in vermont in the state's attorney's office. he tells us about its effect on the state. senator leahy: at that time, it was very controversial. we had to read this yucky accused, as someone had said here. there was no question. think of it this way. what if you were arrested for

something? and they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that's something -- that sunk in pretty heavily. susan: he also said he had little cards with the miranda rights on them and pass them out to police officers around the state as he was educating. lots of comments here. he writes that every lawyer knows that police found a myriad of tactics for evading miranda. paul: before maranda, if you go back to the start of the 1960's, you are looking at about a 60% crime clearance rate in this country. what you see in 1966, 1967, and 1968, a dramatic reduction in

crime clearance rates. they fell around 45% and have remained there in the 50 years since. that means 60,000 violent crimes and more than 100,000 property crimes each year go unsolved, even if you control for other factors. it is not just reading the words off the cards that miranda requires. it also forbids police am asking questions if somebody refuses to allow questions to occur. that is the damaging blow that miranda inflicted on law enforcement in this country. it truly did handcuff the cops. jeffrey: this is a very important empirical debate. paul has made a very strong contribution to it. here are some of the big statistics on the other side. they are offered by people like camazar.

he notes that the current view is that the impact on conviction rates is negligible. typically around 25% of suspects invoked their rights to silence. carefully-conducted studies indicate that in 55% to 65% of interrogations, the police succeed in obtaining incriminating statements. this is an important statistical debate. we can go back and forth. but i do endorse the view that, after having initially resisted miranda very strongly, president nixon denounced it. the police came to accept miranda for the reason that the caller states, that it is so easy to get around. all you have to do is say the magic words and then you can resort to the same trickery, deception, subtle pressures that

allow people to confess in ways that go against their interest. miranda did not require the people to make good decisions about whether or not they confess. unless you believe in divine absolution, it is not a good idea to confess if you are guilty. miranda did make it easier for the police to inoculate themselves against future challenges. for that reason, i think a prevailing view among many law enforcement officers is that miranda is not bad for the police. susan: just to get it on the record, in addition to miranda, there were a suite of policing-related decisions that the court took on. a number of them on the screen. mapp v. ohio, which we told two weeks ago in our series. gideon v. wainwright.

escobedo v. illinois. paul: that was the building block for miranda. terry versus ohio allows them to stop someone who is suspected of a crime and frisk them because they might be carrying a weapon. susan: we talked about the controversy of this decision. the court really argued it strongly on both sides as well. you mentioned president nixon campaigned. congress also got into the act and passed the crime control and safe streets act in 1968. what were they trying to do? paul: congress was outraged because criminals were going free and there was expected to be a dramatic act on law enforcement. congress passed a law

reestablishing the old voluntary meeting of confessions. susan: we have 20 minutes left and i want to talk about what has happened in the years ensuing. there have been a number of cases that have begun to refine miranda. what are the important ones to know about? jeffrey: the most in court and one -- the most important one is that dickerson case. paul had a crucial role in it. i will let him tee it up. the argument was that the court should reinstate the tests they congress raised in 1968 and admit confessions if they were voluntary, defined as factors as the time arresting -- the time between the arrest and the agreement -- and the arraignment. what is significant about the dickerson case is that not a

single administration had defended it. neither from johnson through the bush administration. no president had insisted that the substitute for miranda -- therefore, the court surprised a lot of people. it was one of the most dramatic decisions of the rehnquist court. chief justice rehnquist himself cast the sixth vote to uphold it. they are acting not against the wishes of subsequent white houses, but in conjunction with them. susan: it ended up being a 7-2 decision. this was 2007. the majority -- and the minority -- the judge was asked to give a friend of the court argument

that miranda should be overruled. tell us your perspective. paul: i argued in defense of the 1968 statute. the history that jeff is referring to is disputed. president johnson said we are not going to want to this law. president nixon should -- said it should be argued in court. i argued as a friend of the court. one of the strange things that happened, arguing in defense of the federal statute, the administration refused to defend the law even though there were strong arguments on its behalf. that set the stage for the ruling against it. if the clinton administration had sent their solicitor general, i think things might have come out differently. susan: there is a bit of what chief justice william rehnquist wrote. "we hold that maranda, being a constitutional decision of this court, may not be overruled an act of congress and we decline to overrule miranda ourselves." jeffrey: it is a remarkable decision. chief justice rehnquist has said

that miranda is not a constitutional decision and he would come to the edge of overruling it. he shots everyone by upholding it. why does he do this? one thing he says is that maranda has come to be accepted by the culture. this causes justice scalia -- his head almost explodes. he said the court has converted maranda into the cheops pyramid of judicial arrogance. i did not know what it was or how to pronounce it before justice scalia reminded us that cheop was a king who was so arrogant that he believed he could build the biggest pyramid and history and killed a lot of people doing that. justice rehnquist was a

pragmatist. much more conservative. he had been the lone ranger and a little bit here -- pure in his constitutional abuse. we saw those tv warnings. we saw the fact that this symbolized law enforcement across the board. that combined with the fact that the other justices accepted. 7-2, rejected. susan: pete is in georgia. you are on the air. caller: my question is about the hearing in 2013. some of the inherent weaknesses in in miranda were on full display. that you have to invoke your right to silence.

that assumes that you know those rights and the police cannot take that opportunity away from you. could you please explain that case? paul: that is one of the follow-on cases. one of the things that is remarkable about miranda, the basic framework is still applied today. i view that differently than jeff does. some people look at the dickerson decision and say that was a bullet that was dodged. i see dickerson and some of these other decisions as

opportunity missed. we have not updated miranda at all in the last 50 years. we have not looked at emerging technologies like videotaping. if i am an innocent person being questioned by a police officer, i would much rather have a video camera running to make sure there are not threats being used in the office can be constructed later. the only thing i get is a -- the officer reading a few words off a card and making me sign a waiver form. we need to think about new ways of limiting maranda that not only protect suspects, but give law enforcement the ability to ask a few more questions. susan: next is brian in washington. caller: the speaker who just spoke is keen on having police officers ask more questions. my question is, does he believe the police should keep on asking

questions when the suspect says i don't want to talk? miranda says that the police have to stop questions at that point. does he believe that that right should not exist? paul: i think what we ought to be doing is changing the miranda rules so they do not have these hard and fast question cutoff rules. i call this the mother may i rule of police questioning. police officers have to give a warning and a waiver to someone in order to ask questions. if someone says they do not want to answer questions, they cannot ask even reasonable questions. i would allow police officers to continue to ask questions so long as they were not extracting an involuntary confession. jeffrey: if i could just jump in on unequivocally endorsing halt suggestion of videotaping interrogations. we are having huge debate right

now about the use of body cams. iphones are transforming encounters between cops and citizens. the american law institute is trying to come up with rules for body cams. there are plenty of civil libertarians who agree that videotaping interrogations would help police and suspects. that does not necessarily mean that miranda should be thrown out as well. both should be good. there is also no doubt, as paul said in the previous caller suggested, the court has changed since the rehnquist court reaffirmed the dickerson decision in cases like that salinas case and the tompkins case from 2010. the suspect does not invoke his miranda rights and the court says that he waived his right because he failed to do so unambiguously. this is not a decision that has as broad support as it did at

the time of dickerson. it remains hotly contested. susan: on twitter -- the suspects must tell police that they are going to remain quiet if they are going to invoke the right to remain silent just the same as to tell police they want a lawyer. paul: that is such a unique fact pattern. someone sits high at for 90 minutes and eventually ends up making a statement. those kinds of decisions, silliness in 2013 and thompkins in 2010, have covered those patterns. day-to-day law enforcement, i do not think we had seen change. that is not just my view on the data. if you look at the fbi data, the crime clearance rate is the same

as it was in 2010 and 1970. police in america today are less effective at clearing and solving crimes than they were before the law enforcement -- then the court handed down its decision. jeffrey: the aclu criticized the court in thompkins for cutting down on maranda, opening the door to prolonged interrogations intended to where suspects down. the u.s. attorney general said the new flexibility would ease the burden on military intelligence and police and provide a more flexible response to terrorism. these provisions are having an effect. susan: kevin in tucson. caller: my question concerns shifts in the american law enforcement policy in the 1960's. with the implementation of the exclusionary rule and other rulings, including miranda v.

arizona, i am wondering if it was the court itself that helped shift policies or public opinion and the turbulence surrounding questionable law enforcement policies, especially in the south in the 1960's? susan: thank you very much. jeffrey: such a superb question. i would like you to read the late william stutz' book about the relationship between public proceeding and criminal procedure. it tends to mirror broader society rather than cause them. when crime in the 1960's went down, the court became more liberal. when it went up in the 1970's, it became more conservative and vice versa. the notion that the court transforms society does not seem right. on the other hand, it was called a revolution for a reason. it did change the rules that police operate under in a significant way. and it came to symbolize the

importance of respecting what warren came -- called the dignity of the individual. susan: on twitter -- that is their point of view. we have about seven minutes left. i want to tell you we just have one more in our 12-part series. if you have missed any of it or want to learn more about the cases, we have a very robust website with lots of background on these cases. and also more video attached to each one of them. you also can buy a book that we have copublished. it is called "landmark cases" and is written by tony mauro. we will get it to you for the holidays if you want to give it to a fan in your family. it gives you background and the

legacy of all the 12 cases featured in the series. i want to get to a couple more calls and then we will wrap this up. next is pam in texas. caller: i just wanted to ask a quick question. do you think with the terrorism and everything that we are facing now in this more modern era, you know, the 50 years that have been, do you think it is time to make an update or change miranda in some way? jeffrey: descriptively, we know that if fears of terrorism are increasing and people want the government to be tougher on crime and if you are predicting, i think it is unlikely that the court would hold miranda to terrorist suspect interrogated abroad. we are having a huge debate in

this country about police brutality, over criminalization, the treatment of african-american citizens. that could go the opposite direction. with the new sensitivity, there could be the importance of human dignity and the fact that all these encounters are being caught on camera makes it harder for the police to engage in incommunicado conduct that they used to. for those reasons, i do not think maranda is going to go away anytime soon. susan: from twitter -- paul: if there is an involuntary confession, that should not be admitted. miranda puts in place a series of highly technical procedural rules and throws out perfectly good confessions because the police have made some kind of mistake along the way. that is the real problem. we talk about human dignity. one of the things that has changed a little bit in the last the years is we now have a much more robust rights movement. a lot of books have been written

telling the maranda story but no one has told the story of patricia, the young woman who was raped by maranda. there is now more attention to that side of the equation. i think that is a change for good. susan: ed in connecticut. caller: does the supreme court take a macro view of the legal system for self-assessment? for example, the u.s. incarceration rate is the highest in the world. that might be on the bad side. on the other side, crime is declining. jeffrey: great question. if professor stutz and others are right, at least they are channeling it somehow. what is striking is how on empirical -- unempirical many of these decisions are. there is not a lot of engagement with law enforcement officials themselves, either victims or the accused, and for all those

reasons, much of the most interesting work in policing nowadays is being done not in the courts and constitutional decisions, but regulations in police departments passed by states. illinois and others, almost every state is grappling with questions of body cameras and police interrogation. these are often legislative decisions. professor casale -- cassell might agree. it is appropriate and good to affect -- to focus on the facts on the ground. susan: but if there are different rules -- paul: one of the things that maranda did that has been its biggest harm to america is it petrified the law of police interrogation. the rules today are the same as they were in 1966. just as we have made advances in medicine and auto safety, we

could make advances in the way we regulate police interrogation, advances that allow police to get more confessions and provide protections for suspects. miranda, because it says it is a constitutional right, made those changes difficult. susan: we will wrap this up by listening to earl warren's grandson, jeffrey earl warren, who shares with us some family history. his grandfather's view of what the miranda decision and other policing decisions did for society. let's watch. >> i would like the court to be remembered as the court of the people. no one can say how the opinions of any particular court or era

will stand the test of time. all one can do is to do his best to make his opinions conform to the constitution and laws of the united states and then hope that they will be so consider it in the future. >> this is the binder of letters that i have from papa warren. in 1969, he decided to resign. i had been at the university of california. i had written him a very passionate letter, how we were going to burn everything down and i would never bring children into this world because it was such a mess. he writes back to me, i will just read a couple of sections. "the world is not perfect because human nature is not perfect." this was his big point. "if all of these laws were ok, many of our problems would be solved or we would be in

manageable shape for solutions." "we must also take into consideration human nature." he goes on to say that we do not want to burn everything down because the result will be anarchy. and i know you know from your books that governments and institutions are struck down. they are almost always replaced by autocracies. who suffers most under them? the minorities, of course. then he finishes, "i know that i have not resolve any of your perplexities, but my hope is that in the young people of today, i believe they can and they will bring to bear the strength of their idealism to right the wrongs that regretfully have been done or ignored by four generations and particularly my own." susan: earl warren, former chief justice's communication to his

son. last word on what was discussed tonight. paul: earl moran's legacy is a mixed one. it is an example of criticizing the courts. once the justices become nothing more than politicians in robes, we have bitter confirmation battles and the sort of thing we have seen playing out over the decades. jeffrey: what a beautiful quip. what a great name. i love the god bless america. his fundamental concern was translating the values of the fifth amendment to the modern age. the fifth amendment, concerned about thought crimes, not exerting psychological pressure. to retics confess. warren takes that and makes it modern in the 20th century and ends by quoting justice

brandeis. you see that in his letter. the court has to be a shining emblem to what the fifth amendment means. susan: you heard the chief justice say they will try to do the best they could in the context of the law. it will affect decisions. you're suggesting it is time for us to rethink some of this based on new technologies. >> i think miranda could be updated, could be more effective. there was a lot of thinking about this and hopefully we can all come together and try to think about things like body cameras, videotaping, interrogation, other things that would update miranda. susan: thanks to both tho you for being with us tonight. we appreciate your insight on the miranda case and the overall

policing of america. thank you so much for being in our audience tonight for your great questions and comments. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> to learn more about the supreme court and view other programs for our series, go to c-span.org/landmarkcases. an amazing story where terrible cruelty was perpetrated. there was great love affairs, but it is also a family where fathers killed their sons. wives had their husbands murdered. where sons murdered fathers. >> sunday night, and discussion romanovs." the "the >> all the girls, all the children were basically wearing their own bizarre bullet-proof vests. but vests sown with the

diamonds. hundreds of diamonds were sewn so they could have money in case they needed to escape. they spent months sewing these diamonds. theirally, these made execution and their agony much longer because the bullets bounced off diamonds, the hardest substance known to man and they did not die. >> sunday night on 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> 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 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 affect 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. i look forward to hearing what 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 to extend a welcome to a man who 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. the good news for the city of chicago, in the last four years there have been three distinct studies of 100 cities. in each of the 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 ambassador, secretary henry paulson, 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 future of global cities.

in many ways, this except where mayor emanuel just left off. as he says, chicago has recently 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? we have a fantastically diverse 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, 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. we have 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 asking ambassador chen. you spent 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? ambassador chan: how much time do i have? >> three minutes. ambassador chan: 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 petrochemical center, the third largest in the world. and we are an aviation hub. 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 off with excellent leadership, a 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 the founding father and his 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. ambassador chan: 5.5 million. gillian: how many in bangkok today? mr. sukhumbhand: 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. sukhumbhand: we are always very jealous of singapore. [laughter] the unity of national and local governance. this makes one's task much 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. sukhumbhand: i'm not sure whether that is a compliment. [laughter] gillian: i think we can take it as a compliment. ambassador chan: 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. for 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. gillian: i want to return to the 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. but i would like to bring in ms. 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? ms. 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. i think when i was in the plane 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. london, 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 are problems with visas and 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 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. meeting the challenges of 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 londoners, distinct, so therefore the way in which

london is run has to be true to that. and there are aspects of, you know, the city state of singapore that would never work in london. london is kind of irreverent, self-confident -- gillian: a young city. ms. jowell: 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. now, number 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 mayors here. it is 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 what's going to happen, this

population explosion over the next two to 3 billion people. where are they going to go? to the cities. so the reason i 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 talking about all the arts and 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 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. favorably with london, very favorably with, with most mar -- gillian: with chicago? sec. paulson: 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 -- look what happened to one and look what happened to the other. and a lot of it was just a really good management. gillian: right, 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 emissions around the world comes from construction, from the creation of cities and places like china, which has been a key issue. governor, would you like to jump in for a second? ambassador chan: i wanted to throw into the ring this thought. you know, peter schwartz says that by 2065, 80% of 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. now, the rural countryside will be urban. and 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? etc. sec. paulson: whether it helps or hurts, it is a fact. and so, and a big part of this is going to be having cities be livable. cities that are livable for people, made for people, not just cars. and my own view is that, just taking china as an example and building on what gillian said, you know, that roughly 40% of carbon emissions come from the last five

years, and half of all new buildings have gone up in china. so, you say where will the big benefits come from? a lot will come from energy efficiency. and i think if it is done right, talking 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 again, there's a lot to be learned from what we have seen, experiments and things going on in cities all around the world. and, for instance, in china, the reason, the -- my institute is a think and do tank, focused on

right now two things in particular, one of which is this region of beijing, 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 with that is 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. and 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. but i'm curious -- 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 fundamental 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 do not let us remember, don't let's forget that we have to broker, 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. sukhumbhand right now. and say 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. as you say on current projections, two thirds of the world's population will live in cities by 2050, and if you

extrapolate from the charts you end up with everyone living in cities soon. how on earth do you, in bangkok, cope with the sudden expansion? i mean, do you have the ability to execute decisions quickly, or are you being upended by messy politics, too? could you copy what secretary paulson says about green technology? gov. sukhumbhand: for a long, long time, bangkok flourished by itself. for a long time, we expanded our economy without city planning, with very little legal power given to the city. but 30 years ago, a new law was passed. and i think we began to put things right. and yes, in many ways 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 relative continuity in the 30 years since the law was passed. there have been only six governors, while there have been over 20 changes of government. gillian: so you have had -- they changed 40 times, and you only changed seven times. ok, certainly more stable then italian politics. [applause] [laughter] gov. sukhumbhand: but still, we need to amend the law because the world has changed. we need more legal capacity to deal with more problems.

and introducing green technology is difficult, if we require great investment, but we are trying our best. political contraint is a big constraint. bangkok pays 70% of the nation's taxes, but we get from the government less than 0.7% of the national budget. gillian: that sounds like a bad deal. gov. sukhumbhand: in the last 20 years, the national budget has gone up probably four times, while in 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 to get 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. sukhumbhand: we talk to different people. we are allowed to engage in agreements. i do not engage in tribal politics. as i mentioned. i have had to work with three governments in the last seven years, and on the whole they have been reasonable. over the years, so yes, we can go our own way in this sort of things. indeed, we were more progressive than the government. we introduced 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. weekend go ahead with the -- we can go ahead with the program. gillian: there is a model in london as well. ms. jowell: some policies will be initiated and have their origin at a very local level, a sort of community level. some will be determined by the national government, the city government then becomes the mediator, the implementer. it seems to me the important thing is to be pretty focused on the small number of policies that can be transformational, and that you as a city government have the power to deliver. right?

sec. paulson: i would just echo what has just been said. in that i think the issues everywhere i look are political. and it is not just in democracies. using the u.s., i'll make two comments. first of all, 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. and how do you attract private capital? and the issues we have are the multiple regulations and delays and political risk that makes it an unattractive investment. so, it's very hard. you talk about building high-speed rail, building the kind of public grid we should have in the united states.

and you look at the right of ways. some people say, china is an authoritarian government, and i call it the emperor syndrome. you know, thell president, xi jinping, what you are 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. does 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. so, there are all sorts of issues. they don't have the national bureaucracy they need. the president is trying to modernize the government. and grow that. 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. and unfortunately, a lot of the things that need to be done are politically unpopular. gillian: except in singapore, of course, which has this very holistic model where essentially it is small enough to be run as a simple democracy. ambassador chan: and there is something to be said about

continuity of government. you know? i would like to pick up the point also about everything being political and mayors 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? if there are 10 cities doing very well and you enhance the power of every mayor, you will 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. and the mayors have done a very good job of learning from each other and inspiring each other. sec. carlson: mayors in the u.s. have a lot of power, and they get things done. and it's really, i think one of

the strong as parts about the u.s. system, with exception to some of the fiscal affairs have been run in our system. [laughter] gillian: spending time in washington usually makes me feel like i want to jump off the nearest tall building, but in time, look at what is happening in the local areas, municipal regions, cities, is wildly inspiring because you have these petri dish experiments all over america, 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 actually 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? because certainly in london right now, there's quite a lot of people in london who would like to secede if there were a brexit. and create their own city state. but is the country talking about cities as agents of foreign policy? sec. paulson: as somebody not carrying water on one side or the other, they are different systems. and in some, there's different forms of federalism. there are different political systems. and to me, 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 in managing cities, and in 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 open for business. and so again, we can argue about whether we should give cities more power or not. i am really much more focused on where we should create the models, because that is where so much action will take place. and even if the policies are set at the national level, they will be implemented in many cases at the city. and that is where, when you are dealing with crime, preventing terrorism, dealing with education, which is almost the training, businesses working with cities -- i just see this as being huge. and again, come back to cities needing to create models.

ms. jowell: i think this question about, should cities be free to develop a foreign policy, really, it forgets the order, which is there are certain functions a national government has to discharge. and i think that -- i'm sure, london is the city i know best in the world. you know, you could certainly argue the case and described london's foreign policy, which is by and large pro-european, outward-looking, pro-immigration, and in favor of utilizing the links with countries like india, like china. parts of south america. the city having a large diaspora, apart from anything else. so, i think that is fine. but i think it is very important

not to forget that the electorate, and mayors are elected, the electorate will judge the success of the mayor 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 d improved the quality of infrastructure. so again, you are coming back to this, it is slightly mario cuomo-ish, you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. and there has to be a practical underpinning and very clearly managed -- gillian: so do you think somebody like sadiq khan, the new mayor of london, was correct in saying that the u.k. should remain in the european union? is that the role of the -- ms. jowell: absolutely. look at the businesses in

london, which speak with virtually one voice on the importance of european investment in london. he was absolutely right to share a platform with the prime minister in doing that. because this is an issue of national concern, not one of narrow party politics. gillian: would you go out and be an ambassador for thailand, not just bangkok? gov. sukhumbhand: while they remain, there is very little time to engage in international diplomacy. governments find it difficult to travel.

sitting here in chicago, people in bangkok will start asking, where's the governor, why isn't he here trying to drain water from the streets? [laughter] gillian: ok, so we will watch the weather forecast in bangkok. gov. sukhumbhand: that doesn't mean we don't engage in any diplomacy at all. but we have built 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. word.n: last ambassador chan: i 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. and i know when bill clinton was governor, he went to taiwan.

you know, i know jacques chirac when he was mayor of paris went to japan quite a few times. you know, 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 grand strategy. but as an ambassador in washington, i'm quite intrigued to find takoma park imposed in fact sanctions on myanmar, way above what the united states was imposing. boston, as well. gillian: so cities were imposing more sanctions on myanmar? ambassador chan: and takoma park in maryland. i was naturally interested. i was quite intrigued.

how could this be? but there you are. you know? gillian: that is part of the federal spirit of america, and the diversity. sec. paulson: it is becoming much, much more intense, with globalization and with capital being as mobile as it is. it's amazing how competitive businesses are looking to build. mayors and governors, that's a big part of their job. and it's becoming more intense, i think more difficult. and so you will find mayors fighting and promoting to bring business, or being big protectionists, trying to protect dying industries. gillian: just on that note, i have to quickly ask you, if the london, the u.k. does vote for brexit, does london lose its global perch?

ms. jowell: well, let's hope that doesn't happen. [laughter] i mean, i think brexit would be damaging to london's economy. yes. gillian: what probability do you give to brexit right 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 certainly for the next generation. know which way we are voting. 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. and to me, a no vote would be devastating, and i do not think it will happen. ms. jowell: i hope you are right, but many political

predictions have been upended this year. gillian: let's have questions from the audience. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself. if you wish to ask a question, it would also be courteous to keep your question very short. i believe we have some microphones roving in the audience. and if you wish to direct it to an individual person, please let me know. if not, i will direct it myself. so, any questions for our panel? we have a question back there. >> from 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 , you know, global cities from developing countries, especially those facing profound violence and dysfunction, like rio de

janeiro, where i come from -- and i live in london, they aspire to be global cities, and they are seen as global cities. as the introductory video showed. 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? sec. 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: i think my comment aside, i think people, the violence in chicago, which is, you know, very sad, is not in the areas where business is operating, and it has not really

affected the competitiveness here. but it is a huge problem. now, do i think in the global developing world that there will be true global cities? and the answer is, you bet. when you look at, so step back a minute. and those of us who have been raised in the developing world, the world is changing, when you look at where growth is coming from, and you look at the 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. it is the economic weight is going to be shifting to asia, to other parts of the developing world. and so the idea, people think

that shanghai, beijing, chengdu, are not going to be right along with hong kong, outstanding global cities, i think don't understand what's happening. so if they get 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 dealing with crime there, they are dealing with terrible pollution issues, dealing with other really serious issues in terms of dealing with their own form of immigration, in terms of

immigration from the countryside without having access to education and health care. but yes, i think that, i think 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 all have to be very cognizant of. because if they don't deal with that, it will affect all of us in terms of what it does to our global ecosystem, what it does to our global economy. gillian: i think this is such an important question. and i think my reaction is on sort of three levels. first of all, cities to not

become global cities simply 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 this sort of self-confidence, 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. and i think the third thing i would say with the rio olympics, what 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 they have to play. and i am sure that the rio olympics 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. so 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. tweeting what role does naturalization of immigrants play in singapore? that's a question which had of course implications 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? ambassador chan: singapore is a very open society. in fact, we are so open about , you know, increasing our population through immigration, and our immigration is not migration from the rural country to the city. we actually give visas, so you can control immigration, and we have been very good about opening our doors, because singaporeans are not replacing themselves. you know, 1.2 is our birth rate. in fact, in singapore today, one

out of every four on the streets is not a signaporean. it is a foreigner. 1.3.ct, it could be now, you can be naturalized to be a citizen, but like most cities elsewhere, we are also receiving some political backlash from too many immigrants. so while we remain open, we are staggering that openness, in other words you are controlling it. but it is hugely important. immigrants play a very productive role in our society and help singapore prosper. they play a constructive role. gillian: in a world where many singaporeans are not having babies. so yeah, much worse than europe. a similar problem in western europe. any other questions from the audience? a question down there.

just a few more minutes. >> steve, with the atlantic. 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 famous data mayors in the world. and while i know there is a panel on this later, it seems so framingtalking about in the power of future cities. 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 steve, say on this panel that data plays a major role, and how we use data and other informatics is crucial in

actually managing the problems of the city. but clearly not every city is on that level. but at the very least, i would say 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 connectivity must now move to sort of digital connectivity. digital footprint of influence is extremely important. i am sorry we did not mention it. gillian: governor, how do you use data in bangkok? i mean, do you have the opportunity to do that? or is that something that -- gov. sukhumbhand: well, we are developing a database that will assist us in tax collection and assess other areas, like public

provisional health services and looking after the elderly. but it is very much still a work in progress. but the importance of data is recognized. ms. jowell: i think the use of data also allows an open 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, that transformational change does not come without inconvenience, and asking people to behave differently, you know, to take their car less often, to take the bus more, to walk more, all of these kinds of things. and i think data can be a

powerful mediator in providing the evidence base on which that behavior change is carried. sec. paulson: i tell you 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. like tim cook from apple, doug mcmillan from walmart, mary barra from general motors, and on the chinese side, alibaba and so on. and, for instance, it has blown me away, looking at what ibm is doing in china, helping them track and be able to predict the pollution. and a source where it is coming from. or what can be done in terms of transportation management.

and all of these companies, the technology they bring if you are -- the technology i see in china just in terms of managing the power on the grid, this is bringing all kinds of capabilities. and so, i think that is a huge tool for mayors. but still, i do think no matter how much of a tool that is, so much of that constraint comes down to political constraints. getting support from the voters to do the things and do really , really difficult things. you are right on. but the reason we did not address it is, in terms of me, i am not a big data expert. gillian: there's always a problem of those pesky politics. all of these has he politicians

-- pesky politicians. i did enjoy the debate. thank you very much indeed. as steve said, 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. we have a session on violence, a big issue, tragically even in chicago. we have an issue on income inequality, on urban design. and we also have events looking at questions of culture. so a whole range of these will be discussed. but to me, perhaps one of the most potent questions, which framed the debate, it's harder to screw up a national government than a city. to which i would add it is probably easier to make your mark quickly. and using really dynamic for the

future then for government to -- thank you very much, indeed. [applause] >> we are all going to have a drink. announcer: tim mccain is the latest member of congress to be focused on our american progress series. he talks about his political career in virginia, as governor and a first-term senator. he is interview tomorrow morning on c-span. >> our c-span campaign 2016 bus continues to travel across the country, to honor winners from this year's student camera

competition. we stopped in maryland, silver students were presented with awards in front of classmates, parents, students, elected officials for producing 14 winning videos, and putting a first prize. one $3000 for a documentary on infrastructure spending. our bus also made a stop at woodrow wilson high school in washington, d.c.. where mark jackson received honorable mention for his video, awarded $250 each. and $750 for a winning video on money and politics, and poverty in the united states. a special thanks to our cable forner, comcast cable, coordinating the community. and you can view all of the winning dr. memories online -- winning documentaries online.

>> the house next week continues work on federal spending legislation for 2017, with much of the focus on th defense department spending. it will be the first to come under new house rules by republican leadership that limits the numbers of amendments.we heard by the legislative agenda from majority leader kevin mccarthy and steny hoyer, in their weekly exchange on the house floor. nge 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 lif