communities and deal appropriately with those behind the manufacturing and distribution of mpss globally. thank you for your time and consideration on this. >> could you see all of the hearing on synthetic drugs at c-span.org. queen elizabeth the second will speak at the state opening of british parliament, outlining the priorities for the coming year. we'll simulcast the coverage live at 5:30 a.m. on c-span 2. now u.s. capitol police chief matthew verderosa testified about the current and future operations of his force, including threats to the capitol, security for the democrat and republican national conventions and balancing the public's access to their representatives while maintaining a secure environment. he spoke before the house administration committee chaired

by representative candice miller. this is an hour. i now call to order the committee on administration for today's hearing on the u.s. capitol police. and the record will remain open for five legislative days so members might submit any materials to include. quorum is present so we might proceed. we're meeting today to hear from the new u.s. capitol chief of police matt verderosa. and as a committee, we want to congratulate you on your appointment and looking forward to continuing to work with you shoulder to shoulder. so we appreciate you coming. he's going to be talking of course today about his vision, his direction for the capitol police moving forward. some of the specific items we hope to discuss today include the capitol police budget priorities and recent security events and actions taken and the capitol police initiatives current and future.

the capitol police is a law enforcement with a unique mission. charged with protecting and serving the u.s. capitol, the seat of the nation's democracy and this is an institution, the physical symbols of our free society. unfortunately our institution of freedom and democracy also is a target. so there will always be need for security restrictions but a complete ban on access could be extremely detrimental to the institution. the american people need to be able to access and meet with members of congress. since congress created the u.s. capitol police in 1828 they have worked hard to fulfill the dual mission of safety and accessibility and we understand this is no small task. each of us, members and staff and visitors alike have the utmost respect for the men and women that serve our nation's capitol. we are holding today's hearing as part of the committee's responsibility for oversight and review the safety and security of the capitol and its facilities. our last hearing with the capitol police was in may of

2015 and today committee will hear from the new chief on the progress made and his vision to continue the force and priorities of the capitol police. our committee works with the capitol police on a daily basis to make sure they have the tools and the authority and the support they need to keep our capitol safe and secure for all. the police are responsible for reviewing security protocols necessary to keep the capitol safe and to ensure that the protocols are tested and deployed against any threats that we might face. as with any law enforcement organization, the responsibility for meeting the mission begins and ends at the top. and that responsibility now rests with chief verderosa. the chief understands the security needs of the capitol complex. the chief has served within the capitol police since 1986 and seen first-hand how new threats have only increased over the years. and while there are sensitive aspects about the operations of the capitol police, there are a number of items that we would like to discuss and receive an

update as well. certainly about some of the various incidents that had happened. i know we've had an opportunity, chief, to talk, i think privately with all of the members here, about the shooting incident that occurred at the u.s. capitol visitors center. and by the way, i will just say before you get a chance -- that your -- your staff, your capitol police, that happened by the book. they did such a fantastic job of reacting and responding. you could write a book and that thing was perfect, to that -- to that response. as well, we had all of these protests -- week long protests that happened recently. we might like to hear about when you were processing such large number of arrests, how that all went. lessons learned perhaps for that. also about your leadership team. your strategic plan and goals and objectives, training, monitoring threats across the campus as well.

we've talked a little bit about garage security. i don't know if you want to touch on that today. that is always an issue. something that we all met about again recently and i know you've met with many members about that and as well as our sergeant at arms, is very, very involved in that as well. so i will also say, before i ask my ranking member to make a comment, i think since the gyrocopter incident, we have all seen, as members of congress here, an increased amount of communication from the u.s. capitol police on various incidents. in fact, we probably get almost more information than we need sometimes. but more is better. and so i'm certainly very appreciative of that. i don't think any member wants to be in a position where we're watching something unfold on the capitol lawn on fox news or cnn or whatever you are watching. so that, i think, is very much appreciated as well. and so this committee, of course, chief, is here to assist the capitol police because we

all share a common goal and that is protecting u.s. capitol campus and everyone who works here and all of the visitors that come here each and every year. we thank the chief for his appearance here. and we look forward to his testimony. and i recognize my ranking member mr. brady for his opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair for holding this very important hearing this morning. good to see you chief. thank you for being here. >> good morning, sir. >> i have a longer statement for the record but i want to comment briefly for how visible he's been with the congressional community. your predecessor was here three and a half years and i think i met him one time toward the end of his tenure. you've been here three months and i met with you four times. i appreciate that. as a son of a police officer, i know how hard your job could be and the rank and file members need a change in the top and my staff advise me we are working well together. so thank you for that. and thank you for traveling to philadelphia last month and for taking the time to meet with the mayor jim kenny and myself to talk about congressional security at the convention. i would like to mention for this

to benefit my republican colleagues that the security professionals in philadelphia were impressed with the chief and the sergeant at arms and i thank him for coming up to philadelphia. again you showed respect to all of our members and we appreciate you. so that will speak very well for you in your convention in cleveland also. thank you for your service and look forward to hearing your statement. >> thank you, sir. >> thank the gentlemen. i think both of thoseventions will go -- those conventions will go just absolutely smooth. any other member wish to make an opening statement or comment. let me formally introduce the chief. on march 21st, 2016, chief was sworn in as the new chief of the capitol police. the chief is the ninth chief and had been serving as the assistant chief of police since april of 2015. the chief has served in numerous roles since 1986 including positions in the uniformed and patrol division, the internal affairs division, the training

and services bureau, in addition he commanded the u.s. capitol police review task force before becoming assistant chief. and as chief of the u.s. capitol police, the chief is responsible for commanding a force of sworn and civilian personnel who are dedicated to providing comprehensive law enforcement and security and protective operation services to the u.s. congress. members and staff and millions of annual visitors as well and to this surrounding complex also. so again, we certainly thank you for joining us, chief. we have your written testimony. you can -- the floor is yours. take as much time as you need. we appreciate you coming. >> thank you, ma'am. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here. good morning, members. and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the united states capitol police. i'm joined here today by the department chief administrative officer mr. richard braddock, deputy chief richard rudd and fred rodgers and deputy chief chad thomas who is staffing the

airwaves right now watching operations while i'm here. also with me is our general counsel gretchen demore and representatives from the department office of in spector general. also i would like to welcome other members of my executive management team and also attending today and i appreciate their -- their presence here today. our fop chairman jim konsos of the labor committee and gus, who is the vice chairman. also with us are members of the teamsters, our other union who we work with on a daily basis. i would like to thank the community for their steadfast support of the united states capitol police. the regular discussions with you and our staff about the mission are greatly valued and i'm very grateful for the committee's engagement and feedback so we could continuously meet the needs and expectations of congress. secondly, would you like to recognize the men and women of

the united states capitol police. every day they publicly demonstrate how american freedoms that we all hold dear are carried out in our nation's capitol. they work tirelessly to ensure that the congress could conduct legislative responsibilities without disruption, all the while exhibiting the utmost respect for the constitution and the protection of first amendment liberties. i'm thoroughly impressed with their performance, which is both seen and unseen by the public and the community. and i'm tnkful for their desire to constantly rise to the occasion and handle whatever comes our way. i've been in federal law enforcement for over 30 years, serving in a number of roles and now as chief of the u.s. capitol police, the responsibility to you, to the members of congress, the capitol police board, the congressional staff, the visitors and my employees to do everything possible to protect and safeguard everyone, every day, in a unique and open

environment. the threats and risks we face today are dynamic and changing and sophisticated. and they create a great he need for focus on national security. coordinating with the capitol police board and consulting with commitys of jurisdiction, including this committee on house administration, we have developed a four-year strategy that provides for growth of the department to fulfill three new mission sets. in an effort to further enhance the successful long-term protection of the capitol complex. the mission sets are the result of a constant threat analysis, including intelligence gathered by partners globally and nationally. and these initiatives consist of the following, enhanced garage security, as we've talked about on several occasions. pre-screeners and additional overwatch personnel at various building access points and also the use -- further use of the enhanced portal screeners that we've employed for the first time during the state of the

union. members and stab staff will see -- staff will see several enhancements as a result of the three initiatives. there is a visible screening at house garage entry points and a more significant officer presence outside of capitol complex doors and access points, including additional canine teams and subject interdiction officers. visitors entering the house chamber will undergo additional screening through enhanced portal scanners, further keeping potential threats away from the house of representatives and the floor of the house. there is much discussion regarding resources for the department and the long-term viability of these initiatives as the chief of police and a steward of the taxpayer's dollars, it is my fiduciary responsibility to look at every responsibility within existing assets to accomplish our mission. before i seek additional assets and resources. the congress has been very generous to the department and i will do my due diligence to first look within and not

request something that -- unless it is truly needed. one of the tough decisions i've had to make to meet the new mission sets within our current resources is to find staffing to -- to accomplish some of the additional screening requirements within our existing budget. to do this, and after discussing my concept with chairman konsos of the fop labor committee, i've determined that it is most appropriate to modify some of our off-post time rotations in the uniform services bureau from the current standard of a one to four rotation to one to five. during shifts when the majority of officers are working, monday through friday, day and evenings. this will make additional man power avaid available and -- available and will result in only approximately ten minutes left off post time or stand-by time for employees. while these enhancements come -- with these enhancements come

important opportunities. the modification of off-post rotations will result in more specialty job opportunities for employees throughout the department. specifically in the area of canine and subject interdiction. these officers will provide police coverage in zones outside access points to the complex. i should note that this change is not also the long standing contractual obligations with the cba and the off post time is well above the minimum required by the collective bargaining agreement for the purposes of conducting and service training, allowing for appropriate relief time for officers who routinely are focused on working the security equipment. with some additional resources, they will be necessary in the outyears to complete the initiatives and to provide stationary posts. i'm confident in the department's ability to meet the new mission sets and we'll continue to look for ways to off-set any cost and potential reapportionment of how we assign

personnel. in the months ahead, we have a number of high-profile events that will require much attention and man power resources. later this month, the annual memorial day rehearsal and concert will take place followed by the fourth of july demonstration on the capitol. and focusing on the nominating conventions in cleveland, ohio and pennsylvania, where we are protecting members of congress. in addition, we're officially planning the 58th inaugural of the president of the united states, which takes place on january 20th, 2017. while this national special security event takes place on capitol grounds every four years, it is prudent and necessary to begin preparations early enough to ensure absolute success in the execution of this significant mission set. as a former commander of the departments' policy and planning operations, i fully understand

the importance of setting meaningful performance metrics focused on outcomes rather than outputs. we are currently in the process of building the foundation to better collect and analyze and share the data that we collect departmentwide with the ultimate goal of having information that allows my staff to better -- to be better informed and in making management and security decisions. the department is actively engaged in addressing and resolving recommendations made by the office of the inspector general. since 2006, the u.s. cp inspector general has made 310 recommendations to the department. we've closed 255 by implementing the recommendations. we're act fifly working -- actively working on closing the remaining 55 recommendations and annually i'll propose key areas for the director to examine so she and her team could assist me in making this a better department. excuse me n. closing i want to

share some of my priorities for the near term. i've always believed that the department's mission is simple yet extremely critical. i want to get back to the basics and not overcomplicate policing. i want to leverage existing resources in the law enforcement community to become smarter and more efficient especially in the area of intelligence gathering. i plan to place a better emphasis on training to help the workforce remain focused and to fight complacency and to ensure that supervisors are prepared to manage. these are the basic areas i will focus on during the next year. finally i think it is important to discuss and mention the march 28th, 2016 shooting incident in the u.s. capitol visitor's center. from all practical perspectives, i want to say that the screening process works. and we had an -- we -- on that day we had an individual intent on wreaking havoc. he was detected to be carrying a weapon during the process we employ each day to screen people

visiting the capitol complex. we were prepared, we responded appropriately, and it should serve as a lesson to others who may want to come to the hill to do harm. our highly-trained officers will stop those individuals who wish to do us harm. i'm extremely proud of the officers involved in this incident and i'm grateful to our partner agencies for their assistance, both throughout the event and following the incident. again, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about the united states capitol police. i'm truly humbled to be here. and i would be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you very much, chief. i would ask -- we mentioned about better communication from the u.s. capitol police to all of the members of congress. but if you could perhaps expand on that a bit, of how your agency communicates and how you work with your -- your brother agencies here locally.

for instance, when we had the navy yard incident and just communicating with d.c. police or other agencies as well, how was that all working? >> certainly. we have a very good relationship with our partner agencies here in d.c. particularly the metropolitan police, the united states park police, the united states secret service, federal protective service and supreme court police. we have communications with our partner agencies. we have a direct switch line to the secret service, the metropolitan police and the park police. we are embedded with several fbi task forces. the jttf, and we have an ongoing relationship with the supreme court and the federal protective service. and they actually command our -- man our command center on a daily basis so we have direct

communications. we also work with other agencies on an ad hoc basis. we have radio communications with most of the local agencies and we're working to solidify further the ability to communicate directly from a command perspective. we meet regularly with the metropolitan police and their law enforcement partners meeting every monday. i attend various meetings as do my subordinate officials, in a multitude of levels, on a multitude of issues regarding the ongoing law enforcement issues, threats and events that are occurring throughout the -- the district of columbia. we have lessons learned from all of the major events, including the navy yard, the second navy yard incident and the difference between the first and second in terms of communication was extreme. incident command as a matter of fact, deputy chief rodgers was

incident commander for -- command post representative for the united states capitol police during that second ongoing navy yard issue. so we have -- we all employ incident command system processes for leadership and command, area command and we communicate on a regular and daily basis during events and during the off times. off-shoot of some of the gyrocopter incident was communication with the community. we have improved our messaging matrix and i apologize if we give you too much. would you rather have you have too much than too little. it is obviously important that you know what is going on for situational awareness and for the effect that incidents have on the legislative process. we take great strides to make sure that you have the information that you need both on the house side and the senate side. we are looking -- we shortly

will have a joint congressional messaging process that is being worked on jointly with all of the stakeholders and i look forward to that. so that will cut out some of the -- if there is delay, it will certainly cut out redundancy and be more efficient. >> if i could ask one other question, chief and i appreciate the answer to the first one. we talk about investment with the u.s. capitol police and certainly there is no second for investing in people and all kinds of technology that can assist you, resourcing you properly. but i'll tell you, the canines are unbelievable. what a critical component. i mean, those dogs can just find things that no computer can, it seems like, right. >> absolutely. >> how do you deal with the canines? do you need more of them? is that an area, how do you see that unfolding in the future. >> we are expanding our canine capability by six dogs in the near term. part of that is the traditional

eod-type sweeps and we have some other new techniques that we use which i would be happy to discuss offline which will contribute to be a force multiplier for us in terms of what we do. absolutely, the dogs are invaluable. they could do many things that humans can't. they detect things at long distances. they could detect things that we obviously would not know were there. so we -- we do literally hundreds of thousands of sweeps every year with the dogs. and again, they are in valuable to us. we have an opening in our -- and we get tremendous competition for the openings in the canine unit. it is truly incredible. >> right. thank you very much. i recognize our ranking member mr. brady. >> thank you, madam chair. as you do know, i represent philadelphia and thank you for your visit. that is where the democratic

national convention will take place but i would like you to discuss your preparations from the capitol police perspective, in philadelphia and also in cleveland. what are your preparations there? >> absolutely. our convention planning is well underway. we've been working -- our dignitary protection division has the lead. they employ -- the secret service is the lead planner for both events. both in philadelphia and in cleveland. as part of the nsse broad approach and committee approach, we've planned these -- we planned these events within that framework. so we have employed the nsse framework for any number of major events, including previous conventions, state of the union addresses and the inaugurals. and it is really a sound system that we cover all bases. our dignitary protection division has made multiple

visits to both venues, both cities. they have procured the requisite lodging and we are in the process of designing security plan for the specific venues, both the actual convention venues and any ancillary venues for events occurring outside of the main venue. i appreciate the opportunity to travel to philadelphia and meet with you and i appreciate the introduction that you gave us to the philadelphia officials. it helped me tremendously in my ability to communicate the message to my troops and to make sure that we're doing all of the things that we need to do. we are going to be traveling to -- either myself or representatives along with the house sergeant at arms and other stakeholders to cleveland in the very near featuret -- future, j as we did in the philadelphia trip. we'll continue to work with law enforcement partners, both state and local and federal to make sure the security plan for the member protection -- and that is

the reason we're there, to make sure that the members of congress have a safe event and we can protect the interests of our statutory protectees. we will continue to regularly brief the capitol police board and my staff is available to brief the committee at your request on the status of the planning. >> thank you, chief. also, it goes without saying the people you brought here, you are having a pretty good relationship with the other unions, the teamsters and the police unions. but also, because they are knocking down my door and have been for the last three years every other month coming in and trying to complain about what we can do to be helpful. that is not happening so i know you are doing a good job. but how often do you meet with your reps? >> i meet with chairman konzos and his team, it is about every two weeks. but in between his staff and my staff, our work on issues, dominic stirrely of former house

administration is my chief of staff and works directly with jim on a number of issues. i meet on a number of issues, whether it is contract negotiations or just daily grievance-type issues. the philosophy for me, and i've known the chairman and gus for many years, particularly jim for almost 30 years. and we have a mutual respect for each other's positions. i've asked jim to be here today and i appreciate his attendance. since i was apointed, we reinstituted the regular meetings. i plan on continuing the regular meetings. we both believe that there is significant common ground that we could address in issues and try to resolve issues at the lowest level before they become grievances and we work on things of mutual interest. of course we'll probably disagree on some issues but i think we have the kind of relationship that we can work through those issues in

anamicable way and try -- and try to do what is best for the congress. >> thank you, chief and thank the men for the job you do every single day and it is a pleasure to be working with you. madam, chair, i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. harper is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. and chief thank you for being here. i know this is a very sobering weekend with memorial service that was sunday and how that -- i know that means so much to you and your attendance we greatly appreciate. last week the house passed some important bills and one of which was the fund the bulletproof vest program to help local law enforcement with that life-saving bulletproof vest to help on the funding issues there. and i know you and i had the opportunity to meet and i want to thank you for coming to my office and for having the opportunity. and as i told you in that meeting, if i had an issue, or a problem, i'm going to come to

you. we'll discuss it. i won't run to the press to talk about it. you and i will have a chance to do that and i want to reiterate that here. but what can we do as a committee and as individual members of congress to help you do your job? and i'm not talking about the funding issues. >> sure. >> what else can we do? >> i thank you for meeting with me, both privately and for your comments today, sir. i appreciate the committees support on initiatives, on whether it is garage security or portal scanners or any of the earth issues that come up. when -- it is interesting, because it is such a large institution. and i have a very large workforce. sometimes it takes a little while for information to filter down. and we're working on the communication piece. but it is also incumbent on us to assist the sergeant at arms

on both sides and the leadership to communicate any message of changes that we do. change is not -- does not come easy for people. both within the department and in general. i know that. i have a 24-year-old, it is hard to change anything without an argument or a reason -- i have to explain any reasoning. and try to do that, because it is the right thing to do. i want to be able to communicate changes and that is one of the reasons that i do meet with the union leadership. i want to have that open communication. but i also want to have that -- with the community. and i intend to continue to visit member offices and -- and try to advise you all -- everybody. and both on and off the committee on what we're doing and why we do things. because i think if you have the information, it helps -- it helps sell the message and it helps us change sort of the mindset, whether we'll institute

new operations or procedures. so i appreciate the opportunity to be able to come to the members and be able to explain why we do things. and i think it is important to maintain that communication. >> chief, firearm qualification and certifications are very important and know we're in an interim here with the -- the range being out of place. tell me what you are doing in the interim and how new facility will be an improvement over the old. >> appreciate the question, sir. we are -- in our current cycle, even though we are off-site, in the interim while our range is down and we're preparing for the opening -- the reopening of the new range, i want to thank the congress and the architect for providing the funds and the -- the space and ability to have a range that is so close to where we work. what is t does for -- it does

for us is minimize the impact of having our sworn workforce off the grounds in a stat thaus is either not work -- status that is not working or in training. it is travel time or it really helps us to have the range here. we had the old range in the rayburn for over 50 years. and we got tremendous amount of use out of the range. and i couldn't even quantify how much time and effort we save by having the range locally. and our goal is to have the new range open up soon, by labor day and use it for at least another 50 years. it will certainly outlast me. but so far in this -- in this cycle, we have qualified 86% of the police department. now we've reaped some benefit, even though there is a little bit of cost associated with sending them out to cheltenham, maryland, where the entry level academy is. we have maximized the use of that time by continuing the

training day. so we send officers out for the entire day rather than having them travel back to the hill. so we -- we leverage the ability to use some more of our training time during that extra day. i look forward to having the range back here on the hill. though, as you could see, we probably will be able to finish our current cycle by june 1st, hopefully. if not sometime in june and then we move on to the second. we have semiannual qualifications so we shoot twice a year in the fiscal year and we are a little bit off the cycle. however, with the indulgence of the stake holders, we have a great plan to get the range up and running and it will provide us with the ability to change how we train. it is a dynamic range. and it is really helpful for us to tactically use a range. >> thank you, chief, and i yield back. >> chair recognized ms. lofgren.

>> thank you very much and welcome to you, chief. it is good to meet you. and i'm hoping that at some point we can have a closed session with the chief because there are some questions that probably wouldn't be smart to ask in a public environment but that we should get the answers to. just two things. i was concerned in discussing this with the prior chief, that although there was communication with other law enforcement agencies, there didn't appear to be a written mutual aid protocol. and so i'm interested in -- not going through it today, but in reviewing that with you in terms of the protocol -- what it is and how it is communicated to our workforce, number one. and number two, i'm wondering if the department has ideas on how the physical layout of the plant might -- the campus might be adjusted to enhance safety and

also to enhance the capacity of your members to do their job. >> certainly the physical security is -- is one of our main issues. we have a very robust physical security -- security services bureau. and they handle all of the physical security aspects, working very closely with the architect of the capitol. the measures that were put in place post 9/11 have really -- we are at the life cycle end of a lot of the life. we're looking at -- at doing life cycle replacement. of course, it is always a very expensive issue but it is certainly something that is very necessary. >> let me interrupt because i don't think i was clear on my question. for example, where is the perimeter? you can't really -- i mean, we respect the fourth amendment, you have to have a rational for

inquiring, but at the perimeter of a facility, you don't. so where are the perimeters set and how -- how should they be set? and how would that make a difference for your troops, in terms of level of security in garages, we have garages that have nothing above them. we have garages that have, you know, an office building above them. >> yes. >> what kind of deployment makes sense in each one? those are the things i was thinking of. >> sure. absolutely. of course, we balance the open campus with the level of security that we provide. and it is very important to maintain. and it is very difficult. you're absolutely right. it is very difficult balance for our officers. we don't have a physical fence. we don't have structures that prevent people from walking across the east front and west front. we use our human intuitive

capability and deploy personnel. obviously within the framework of the infrastructure, whether it is the homestead wall or physical barriers that we install, ballards, barriers that pop up for vehicular threats and those type of things. we have to be obviously very cognizant of the effect that security has on the openness and the ability tor constituents to visit members. >> of course. >> and it is a -- it's a very huge competing interest in the security issue. so we focus our main thrust and concentration on the largest threats and we're always looking for the individual threat, which is one of the greatest threats that we have these days. the individual. but we have to balance it and accept a modicum of risk in

terms of the physical structures that we put in to prevent people from approaching the building. we do work very closely with both this committee and the senate -- committee on rules and administration to work on those issues, whether it is expanding the perimeter, allowing access close into the building or whether it is initiatives to do inspection of things that people bring with them to the grounds. so it's a very tenuous line that we walk. and we -- we take it very -- very hard look at any type of procedure we're going to employ that could come close to -- could be perceived as a violation of the fourth amendment. we certainly don't want to do anything that would be contrary to t to the constitution. so it is a work in progress. we work on it continually. it is a conversation that i have with the capitol police board on a regular basis and we'll

continue to have with the commit of jurisdiction. >> i see my time is skpared. perhaps we could pursue this further. >> absolutely. >> mr. nugent. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate you holding this and chief welcome. >> thank you, sir. >> and i appreciate your time when you came up to visit with me in the office. and what a different approach, i'll just say this. and i'm not blowing smoke, but what a different approach in regards to your approach and the prior chief with inclusion of the union in -- in a weekly or -- whenever it is necessary, a discussion. typically you're going to probably agree on more things than you will disagree, but you will always have disagreements, because that happens in the best of families. but at the end of the day, the rank and file folks out there doing the job every day have great ideas an i think that -- and i think that you're moving

absolutely in the right direction and i think we'll be much safer as members of congress because of that collaboration between the two groups. one of the things -- you know, that still strikes me when we go back and look at past history and we had the chief here discuss that, particularly when we had loss of weapons and things like that, but reading in an article where the person who sent the picture got how many months off without pay and demoted and the person who actually left the weapon unattended in a location that could be accessed by other folks received a suspension, but relatively minor in scope. and i guess i'm -- i'm still a little miffed at the fact that that supervisor got demoted but then also had a huge -- huge

suspension without pay. and i understand it is in litigation so you probably can't talk about it. but would you hope just in the -- but i would hope that in the future, what that person did is actually brought out an issue that needed to be under the light of day. so we all know. and we all take confidence in what goes on within the capitol police. and i'll go along with mr. brady on this. i've not had any negative comments with the union at all. which is -- that is a testament to your leadership. i'll be blubt wint with that. it is a testament to your leadership and i hope that continues. one of the things we talked about was management by walking around. is walking around your organization and listening to the folks that -- you are only as good as the pima associate yourself with and i would suggest that your leadership

team do the same and i'm sure they are under your leadership. one of the things miss lofgren has talked about was security and that is an issue that we grapple with from time to time and you are right we have an open campus but what exactly as we move forward in regards to the underground facilities, i know that we're -- that the equipment is in place. when are we actually going to start doing -- do that screening? >> we'll be doing the security screening with the appropriate communication first. very soon. i can't give you a specific date. i'm working with mr. irving, sergeant at arms and we want to time it right so that we introduce the screening process. i know that people -- we've had some communication meetings with the staff several weeks ago in terms of how we would roll it out. and i'm working very closely with mr. irving on exactly when

we want to do it, strategically, so we cause the least amount of disruption to the business process of the community, about you would expect sometime in the next several weeks we'll do it and special communicate it. i got that message loud and clear. we're going to make sure that we properly communicate and make sure everyone is aware of what we're going to do. i do appreciate your comments about working with the union, sir. i respect the troops. i consider myself first and foremost a police officer. and i'm prepared every time i'm out on the street to take police action. i carry -- i don't have it today. because i'm wearing this blouse. but i carry my radio every day. i monitor the radio. and i take police action when i need to. and i have tremendous respect for the work that we do here. i ask a lot of the troops. they are ambassadors, they still have to enforce the rules and the law and they deal with ten to 12 million people a year and

that is just screening them through the process. there is probably another 10 million who walk through the grounds that we do -- we talk to with we talk to, we interact with. and i'm always amazed at how few complaints that we get from the citizens and the staff about, you know, courtesy or those types of things, you know. they truly are ambassadors. they do hard work there. they're focused on the x-ray machines an the magnetometers and knowing that every time that they have to be 100%, they have to be sharp. so i appreciate members of both unions being here today and i appreciate the relationship i have with the officer officers. i always help to have a positive relationship obviously there are things we'll disagree on and i have to make tough decisions that affect people. but i never fall short of knowing these are people, they're not numbers, they have families and interests and ambitions.

i try to treat others how i like to be treat. eye not making any judgment on any previous chief or anything's. it's just my approach to how i work with my -- my staff. and i have leaders and deputy chiefs and civilian direct rz who are out with the troops. i appreciate that because they're good role models. they're out amongst the troops. again, we make management decision and they're tough decisions and not everyone agrees on the best approach to how we get to that bottom line. but the officers are a great resource, a great example of that is processing the 1300 or so arrests that we had a couple of weeks ago during the democracy spring demonstration period. now, this was nonviolent civil disobedience. it was nonconfrontational for the most part. and it took a lot of planning and effort and a lot of manpower

and it's not me making the arrests. it's the officers that come in early. it's the officers that have to be the arresting officer, and it's the people who do the job that i respect -- i have so much respect for because really i've worked the posts and i've done those jobs, and it's on a sunday sometimes you've got to come in. you have to wake up early and you'd lear rather be doing some else. but hey it's why we get paid the big bucks and they do a terrific job. but we took a new approach on how we handle mass arrests. other agencies in the city have had the ability to cite and release people. traditionally here with the way the rules are set up and the laws, we've had to have full custody arrests for most of the arrestees that we handle. even in mass arrest civil disobedience situations and it's tremendous in terms of time and effort.

these are the same troops during that week that had to go day to day for about ten days and be the same people being brought in early to handle these ars arrests. so we took a concept that i thought could be employed. we borrowed anddapted the metropolitan police's cite and release forms, their policy. we adopted them to ours. we worked with the attorney general for the district of columbia to make sure we were using the appropriate charges. and when the law changed in 2013 it made it easier for us to use this process. so we employed it, and we were able to expedite the process. but the reason i bring this up is it really wasn't me. i had the concept, but the officers are the with ones that took even from the first day we had arrests, it took about eight hours to process 429 people. i mean, it doesn't seem like a lot of time, but when you look at how -- we would still probably be processing these

arrests had we been using the old method, the old mass arrest method. in that short duration of one week, the officers came up with a great idea with a couple of the lieutenants that were running the mission set and expedited the process. so by the end of that week, we processed 300 arrests in three hours, which is just phenomenal. and we had very few issues and we will further refine the process based on the suggestions of the officers. so i agree with you that some of the best ideas come up from the ranks and rise through the ranks. i'm very appreciative of the effort of everybody on the cdu, the civil disturbance unit. switching gears on you for one second and, yes, the case in the paper is in litigation. i would prefer not to talk about it. but the individual was on administrative leave with pay, it was not without pay for that

period of time. just want to set the record straight on that. >> chief thanks for your comments. i appreciate the indulgence of the chair. maybe you ought to talk to your counterpart in the tsa in regards to listening to people that work there and it would be helpful. thank you. >> mr. vargas. >> thank you, madam chair for the opportunity to ask a few questions. first of all, i'd like to thank you once again for meeting with me in my office, letting me know what you're doing and planning to do. that was very helpful. thank you. secondly, you weren't hear earlier but i thanked the capital police. i think you've been doing a really trifk job and i proesh appreciate that. i did want to mention one incident, a colleague of ours fell hard during one of the snowstorms and hurt himself. he was found by another colleague of ours who then quickly got a couple of police officers here, capitol police, to bring him aside and they were very smart to figure out that he had some chest pains and didn't let him walk away like he wanted to and said, no, we're calling the medics.

they did and got the medical response team to come. again, appreciate their very professional work. you know, we probably would have allowed him to walk away and that would have been a very bad idea. so again i think the police did a fantastic job and i want to thank them for that. i do want to ask a little bit about the issue of the open campus. you know, i've been to the boon astaug in germany and they do put a fence around. it's very difficult to access it. we see more and more they have fences and now a double fence over around the front of the white house. obviously, that gives you a lot of protection, but it also prevents people from actually accessing the white house, which at wu at one point they had access to. so hin is a balance there and i think it's important to give people the opportunity to come and visit their members of congress and the senate, but it is also interesting the issue of security, not so much for us but those people who do come and visit us. >> so anyway, i appreciate that

you said you give that a lot of interest, a lot of thought. could you comment a little bit more on that, if you will? >> sure. we do try to leverage technology to the extent that we can. and believe me, again, the force multiplier, technology, the systems, some of the systems i prefer not to talk about in an open forum, but they're there for us to use and we do use them. and we deploy them very effectively. i think azts technology increas and the quality of the technology, i think we'll be able to leverage that. obviously, there's no replacement for having an officer on the beat, on a fixed post or in a patrol area that will focus on the security, particularly close in. you know, we take sort of a layered approach. you want to keep the threat as far away as we can. we push it out and as you get closer to the concentric circumstance circle you want to are have your assets. we do leverage even the physical security aspects where we have barriers and kiosks.

we have post s staffed and we ue the buildings as sort of funnels and we can sort of keep eyes on people and individuals who approach from various direction ptz. but again, we never want to trample on the ability for people to visit. i'm not advocating putti ting u fence or anything like that. i think with our troops and a focus and an approach where we maintain our vigilance in terms of looking at the threat, training our employees in what to look for and being able to make sure that the troops are fresh and they are able to react appropriately, i think with training and staffing that combination along withtributes we've had we've been provided with to protect the campus, you know, i think the ongoing conversation will continue with

the capitol police board and committees to make sure we have all the things we need particularly technologically that will help us and assist us so that we can leverage that without sort of closing the campus off. so i know that it's sort of a work in progress, as the technology changes every day. we want to be able to stay ahead of the curve and we want to keep our finger on the pulse in teerpz of what's available to us to sort of use to leverage as a force multiplier. >> again, thank you very much. and lastly i know my time is about up, i'd like to say this, even though they do monitor the threat, they're very polite and professional, too. and i appreciate that. i know i've commented a couple of people in particular. i appreciate their professionalism. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank the gentleman. chief, again, we just want to thank you so much for coming today. we all are very desirous and looking forward to working with you, shoulder to shoulder, not just you but your management team. and all of the rank and file,

the union fellow that's are here representing all of the rank and files. just know we appreciate it. every one of us is coming into these offices and these office buildings, the capitol every day. we watch your folks day in and day out doing their job so professionally and bravely and well. and we all have a very high degree of comfort and security about the professionalism of the brave men and women of the u.s. capitol police force. and this committee stands by to assist you, and one thing i would say and i know i've said it to you privately i'll say it publicly as well. don don't sometimes wait for a hearing or wait for us to come forward with something. we really want to know from you if there's a shortfall somewhere that you see as a particularly critical element of something that we better be aware of, we need to help with, that's why we're here. we all work together. >> i sincerely appreciate the asupport and how cooperative the staff has been with me. if i want to come meet with the

members. i really sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be here today. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness if we have any. we'll forward them, ask the chief to respond as promptly as he can so any answers could be made part of the record. without objection, this hearing is adjourned. [ in recess ]

[ in recess ] queen elizabeth ii will speak at the state opening of british parliament delivering a speech written by the government that outlines the priorities for the coming year. we'll simulcast bbc's parliament's coverage live at

5:30 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2. our campaign 2016 bus continues to travel throughout the country to recognize winners from this year's student cam competition and recently the bus stopped in massachusetts to visit several winning students from that state. they went to the same school in foxborough where all the students in first through eighth grade attended a ceremony to honor the seventh graders for their honorable mention video titled "gunning for safety." the bus made a stop in ludlow to mention honorable mention winters eighth grader sa doe sed james elliot won for his video. the two were honored in front of their classmates, family members and local elected officials. a special thanks to our cable partners comcast cable and charter communications for

helping to coordinate these visits in the community. and you can view al the winning documentaries at student cam. g cam.org. madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ supreme court justice sonia sotomayor recently addressed a crowd of about 3,000 at rutgers university in piscataway, new

jersey. she talked about her life as a justice and why the high court needs diversity. she's introduced by the university's president. >> well, that's a long way in from that far side. i guess in this arena you should be running in with a basketball or something like that. but i do want to welcome you all here. i must say that the line coming in here was remarkable, orderly, smiling, longer than anything that i've seen at rutgers that did not involve free food. so i'm glad you're all able to get in. i must say i've never seen those seats in the back filled either. yeah, good. as they say, good on you guys, right? just don't fall. i can just see the tumble effect could be brutal coming down. but i do want to welcome you here.

you know this is rutgers 250th anniversary, and we're delighted to be able to celebrate that. [ applause ] but it is also the 60th anniversary of the eagleton institute for policy. so it's nice to have a 60th and a 250th on the same year. this event is a discussion on civic engagement that's part of a series that is done in honor of lieu gam acheeny. is lou here today? i think he is, isn't he? no, wasn't able to make it st d today. he's been to so many of these. he was a senior fellow of brow steen and commissioner of transportation under brendan bern and was responsible for setting up the new jersey transit system. so he sets an example for this and what we're doing today is trying to continue that tradition of civic engagement.

we also have several governors with us today, governor florio and governor mckrief vi, chief justice of the supreme court debra pour ets and a number of our senators and assemblipersonassembliperson s are here today. thank you for join using us and i hope you'll have a good time today. my job today really is to use our guest, and it really it as an honor for me to do this, welcome our guest here to rutgers. she is as you know supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. and it took a venue like the rac to hold the crowd. we had this event scheduled for another space that only held 750 people. i'm a little embarrassed we don't have the columns and white marble here, but considering the number of people who have an opportunity to see and hear what they has to say, i think we couldn't be in a better place than the rac. she's the ideal speaker for a

discussion like that for civic engagement because that's what she's done her entire life. she's also a perfect speaker for our students here at rutgers. i'll just take a moment to tell you a little bit about her. she was born in the bronx to parents who came from puerto rico. [ applause ] she lost her dad as a grammar school student, but her mom worked six days a week to provide for her and her brother. and she was the first in her family to attend college. i have to point out that of the 8,000 new students who joined rutgers last year, a full quarter of them, 2,500, were the first in their family to attend college. so this concept -- as near as i can tell, that was perhaps the

only questionable decision in her otherwise stellar career. she did make the choice to go south for her college experience to princeton. but we won't hold that against her, i assure you. she graduated assume ma cum laude from that institution down the road there and went to law school at yale where she was the editor of the law journal at yale, began her career as an assistant d.a. in new york, was an associate and then a partner at paufy and har court where she litigated international commercial matters. her judicial experience began with her nomination by president george h.w. bush to the u.s. district court southern division in new york in 1992. in 1998, president bill clinton promoted her to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. then, as most of you know, when

president barack obama was elected and sworn into office, his first nomination to the supreme court was our speaker today, and she took her office in may of 20009. and when president obama nominated justice sotomayor, he said this, and i'm going to quote, her career has given her not only a sweeping overview of the american judicial system but a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the american people. and i think that really says it all. she took her seat as associate justice in august of 2009. the first hispanic and the third woman on the supreme court. now, that -- [ applause ] that doesn't do justice to her bio, but she has a book called "my beloved world" that i'm going to put on the mandatory

reading list. i think it was reading that book that motivated ruth mandel to bring her here to sharer her story with us. i think for ruth and some of her sfuds this is a dream come true, to have that intimate conversation in this intimate setting with this intimate small crowd. but i'd like you to join me now in welcoming professor ruth mandel and our honored guest associated justice sonia sotomayor. [ indiscernable audio ]

>> thank you. wow. i was asked earlier today by a student if i still got nervous. i invite that student to come and look at this crowd. and answer the question for me, okay? thank you for coming, all of you. [ applause ] >> i don't think i have to do this introduction. a very, very warm welcome. >> thank you. >> you are getting a sense of how much we appreciate you coming here. it is such an honor, such a joy to welcome you -- it's not on? >> i don't think it is.

>> give it to me. >> them told me it would be on. >> hello? experience makes perfect. >> this is power. can you hear me now? how about this? thank you. thank you. i was saying, a warm welcome. pe a we are full of joy and appreciation that you have said yes to come to rutgers university to help us celebrate some important anniversaries, the 250th anniversary of the university and the 60th of the

eagleton institute of politics. what a pleasure. [ applause ] the president mentioned the background of today's event, speaking personally, i will underscore that this is what you dream about when you write a fan letter. or more than you dream about. that fan letter from me was on behalf of the remarkable student body. we are prrif privileged to teac the rutgers, educating about civic engagement and the importance of political participation, about taking responsibility for our representative democracy is at the heart of the eagleton institute of politics mission and at the core of today's special event. the response to this event has been tremendous, to say the least, and therefore our move to this rather large venue,

somewhat larger than eagleton normally invites guests that visit with us, that has made a casual question and answer session impossible. instead, students from the three rutgers campuses in new brunswi brunswick, camden and newark have submitted questions in advance and some of them have been invited to join us on the court. but before we hear from the students, i have the privilege of asking several questions. and i'm going to begin with the fan letter that was written about the book that i read a couple of years ago which had such a tremendous impact on me and so inspiring. i would like you to talk a little bit about the title for that book. it is called "my beloved world." would you tell us how you came to that title and what it means.

>> as those of you who have read my book know, it comes from a poem by a puerto rican author, one who had been displaced from puerto rico for a period of time. and he was talking about the memories that he had of his puerto rico. and my editor called me up because we had been going back and forth on potential titles for about three years, the process of writing my book. and he said, sonia, have you ever read jose --? i said, in college. did you read this poem? i said, sure. he said, go back to it. it's a much longer poem than the excerpt i have in the book, but i finished the poem and i said, the title is "my beloved world." and he said, that's what i thought, too. and when i thought about it, i actually had some people who

didn't like the title. they wanted something like "mommy dearest," you know, "the life and struggles of." and i realized that when i wrote the book i had in me the objectivie tity and impartialit that is a part of my profession. it ace a craft in my profession. you're taught to look at things as objectively as you humanly can. and so as i wrote about my book, i hope you're all away that i was painfully objective in terms of talking about both the challenges of my life and the good times of miy life. because for many of us, don't those go hand in hand? they're really the flip of the same coin. and what i wanted to do was to

let people understand that i knew that both the positive and negative experiences of my life had crafted me. they made me. and they made all of the good that's in me. and my mother would say all of the bad, too. but who i am is an amal gam of those experiences. and for me each one was necessary to creating who i am. so when i finished the book, i realized that i loved my life. when you're in the kind of position i've been thrown into, people always ask you what you would redo. and i tell people not a thing. first of all, it would be disingenuous. how many people get to the supreme court, okay?

but even though i wouldn't necessarily want to change that, there are parts of it that i wish i could have done without. but i really do appreciate that with it, it made me a better person. and so hence the title "my beloved world". >> this will relate a little bit to what you're saying. you've risen as everyone knows who's read the book and who's followed your career from very humble beginnings to one of the nation's most prestigious and visible positions. what have you held on to from your earliest days? >> my gosh, read my book. everything. just about everything. you know, i tell people that i'm the proudest american that you could ever imagine. when i'm asked what i am and who i am, i tell them i'm an american from new york city. but when i talk to people, i also tell them, i have a puerto rican heart because my culture

is deeply ingrained in me. who i am is all of the experiences i have had but also the values that i was taught and it's unfair to attribute it just to being puerto rican. i think every culture instills common values. all of us have love of family, love of community, love of country. but there is something in the music that i heard, in the poetry that he read, in the food i ate, in the dances that my family had that stay ins in the very core of you. that core is so vibrant and so important to me that i don't think it will extinguish the day i do. how's that? and i bring it with me to just about everything i do.

>> when -- >> by the way, i don't think you know -- i'll tell a story. i think it might interest the audience. the day the president called me to tell me that he had selected me to be his nominee to the court, he asked me to make two promises, and one of the two was to stay tied to my community. and my response to him was, mr. president, i don't know how to do anything else but. and i think that that response not only was genuine, it was who i am. and i don't know that he understood, however, that my community was just not my family or even my puerto rican culture. it is much wider than that. it's a world that i care very deeply about. it's a country that i'm very

devoted to. it's issues that are critically important to me, education being at the foremost. so all of that is my sense of community. >> going back a bit to the family but how that -- how the relationship has evolved from the book, it's apparent and from what you're saying, of course, that family is such a key theme and priority in your life. being a supreme court justice is so high profile and being in the presence of a justice can be intimidating, although you make it easy, i must say. >> thank you. >> has being on the court affected how people close to you, including those people in the family, treat you? does the fame especially in such a politically charged climate as we're all living in, does that affect your family and your relationships with your family? >> well, the day i got a call

from my brother telling me he was in a gym in california and guess what, the president walked in and he went up to a secret service agent and said, you know what? i'm justice sotomayor's brother, and he got through secret service to shake the president's hand, he he called me and said, okay, this is worth something. okay? there are good things, the person whose last name was the same as mine and told the police she was my cousin -- i have no idea who this person was -- and there are moments it affects family and very dear friends. i earlier told stories of moments with friends where we've really had to talk through the relationship and the situation, more the situation.

you know, people torture my family and friends to get to me so i'll say yes to doing something. and at the beginning it was very hard on many of my friends because they felt some loyalty to whoever was asking them to do the thing and at the same time they understood that my life had gotten very complicated. but i found just as i describe in the book that really talking it out makes a huge, huge difference. and each of us has and them have found a protocol for dealing with it that takes the pressure away from them and from me. and so, yes, that does affect you. i earlier told the students who were at lunch that the first christmas that i went to our family christmas party -- we do it around new year's because everybody has nuclear families elsewhere. my own is with my brother in

syracuse. so i come back down to the city for new year's. and we have an outing at my cousin miriam's home. you'll know who miriam is. she's my my imi in the book. and i walked in and i sat down at the couch and there was silen silence. deafening silence in a puerto rican party. nobody be shuts up and all you hear is people talking above each other and screams from the other room and laughter and lots of it. and i looked around, and i said, what's wrong with you guys? i'm still sonia. and then the room burst out in laughter. and everybody started talking ov each other and asking me questions and we started going through and catching up. but sure it changes the

relationships. it has to but so there are events i miss because i can't leave the court, events that the family knows i would have been at, including my 90-year-old aunt's birthday. that's something i would have never missed except they decided to have it on a day i was away. my point is that, sure, it changes it, but we work hard at keeping it the same as much as we can. but it's a work in progress. none of this happens on its own. and it's them working with me and so if the event is really critical to them, they'voe lear to call early so we can get it on my schedule. and they've even accommodated funerals so i can come in from washington and put it off a day so i could travel. so it's a sort of gif and take that we're doing to maintain the relationship and close to the

same as possible. >> as close as possible. >> as close as fopossible. >> in the memoir, you touch on the role of pol tikzs in the judicial appointment process and the need to make yourself and your skills oneself and one's skills known to those in power in order to be considered for a judgeship. what was the experience of making your skills known blowing your own horn like for you? and particularly for some of our students here, what advice would you give to young people about how and when to be your own cheerleader? >> hmm. i really believe in letting your actions speak for you. and the one thing that you i know i did was to ensure at every stage of my career that i was doing the very best job i humanly could. so i studied and studied and

studied both in high school and at princeton and at yale. and i never, never cut corners with my education. my book talks to all of you about how i relearned how to write in college because i thought that my writing was inadequate. >> sound please. [ indiscernable audio ] >> hello? so i went back and reread grammar books, found a professor who helped me with every paper, to reteach myself and to relearn english grammar and how to apply it to actual writing. but i've done that in my professional pursuits. my first year at every job i have really not been distracted

by anything else. i've put my head down and i studied as hard as i could. and once i felt i was in control of the process i was in, then i would go out and do other things and try to become a leader in those things that interested me. one of the hardest things that do today, i look at the resume of students, and you're often involved in so many different things, i worry that you're missing the point. you should get involved in a couple of things that are really important to you and then excel at them. become a leader. do something noteworthy, something that people will talk about in their letters of recommendation about you. it can't just be, you know, she's a member of x, y, z and a, b, c and d or she does this and that. it's really important for a

letter to talk about what your passions are. and to show how good you've been. and that's how i dealt with my professional career. it was putting my head down and being the best i could, the best lawyer i could be in the d.a.'s office. getting a reputation for being tough but fair. that was important it to me. but most important to me was being passionate about the work i did. don't do any work that you're not passionate about. first of all, i you won't be good at it. if the work doesn't interest you, if it doesn't satisfy something in you, then you're not going to be the best at it. but if you go into work situation recognizing that you can learn things from any situation that you're in and work to milk that learning experience to its yut utmost,

then you'll grow passionate about your work because except for illegal activity all other work has value. you know, i tell law students especially those who are so passionate about public interests, it's not a sin to make money. all right? it's not. and commensurate with that, it's not a sin to work for a corporation or to work for a big law firm or to make money. it is a sin if you do those things without giving back to your community. if you do those things without volunteer i volunteeri volunteering, without using some of those resources, both the company you work for and your own, in helping public interest

activities. then there's something wrong. but all work has some inherent value. all work can be intellectually stimulating. in all work you do, you can help people. you know, on april 15th, all of you are very happy with your tax accountants, okay? and you think, as i do sometimes to myself, don't they get bored with those numbers? but they don't because this is fascinating to them. and for the really good accountants who are working closely with you and really trying to help you, not just save money but to be honest and to be upstanding in how you report your income, you know that you value that. so you can value the taxicab driver who takes you to where you need to go. you can value the bus driver who takes you to work every day. you can value the person who cleans your room in a hotel,

just as you can value anybody that provides a service for you. and so don't be afraid of thinking of public interest more broadly. think of it as an opportunity to figure out what job satisfies your intellectual interests, makes use of your natural tal t talents, and where you can use those things to benefit sometimes yourself but to benefit others. and i think if you do that you end up with a passionate life. and that is actually the most important thing that i think you should be thinking about as you study law. don't eliminate choices simply because others think, oh, my god, you're going to be one of those horrible corporate lawyers. there's nothing horrible about it. anything you do with honor can

be put to good use, okay? >> we're having a problem with this. >> hello? i got it now. i'll give it back. now that you're on the supreme court, do you view your role as a judge differently from when you served on the lower courts? and in what ways? how does that vary? >> i don't know how we're going to do this, but they'll figure it out. all right, you see a lot of dressed up people around the room, men and women in suits. they've got these little things in their ear. most of them aren't u.s. marshamarshal s and campus police and some of

the local police. and their job is to protect me, not from you but from me, okay? i like doing something that they don't like a whole lot because they think it puts me in danger. i don't so i do it. but i do it because you're going to make me a promise, which is you won't get up when i walk around among you. okay? i don't like sitting still. if you read my book, you'll know that i was called a hot pepper by my mother whi was a child because i never sat still. i was always up and down. and i haven't stopped since. i also think if i move closer to you that you'll feel like we're having a real conversation. so just don't get up because if you do, they jump into action. and it gets a little messy. i'm going to try to make it

somewhat up there, but i'm not that young anymore. so we'll try, okay? all right. is there a difference? it's harder, much, much harder, to be a supreme court justice. when i was on the lower courts, the district and the trial courts, i always thought to myself when i got to the supreme court, how much different could it be? a lot. and it starts with that i had not realized or appreciated when i was on the district and circuit courts how much comfort i took in making decisions from the fact that there was a court above me that could fix my worst m mistakes. that really gives you an out,

okay? you struggle with a question. you do the best job you can. it's much easier to let go when you know you're not the final word. well, now i'm part of the final word. and although congress can fix some of the things that the supreme court does wrong, it can't fix others. on constitutional questions, we're the last word. on statutory questions, it's not easy for congress to act and change laws or change things that many of them, many congresspeople, may think is wrong. and so making a decision is much, much harder. and in many ways, i feel it more a burden because i remember one thing, in every single case that comes before the supreme court,

we're announcing a winner. we're telling one side they were right. i'm getting past the nuances. sometimes with we say they're right on one thing and wrong on another. but generally, one side is going to come away feeling vindicated by our decision. and the flip of that is someone lost. and someone feels like something important has been taken away from them. either a right they thought they had or a recognition of a loss that was deeply felt by them. and that makes this job that much harder. and so that part of the judging

is very different. the critical difference, however, is so the layperson can understand it, we're the court of last resort. and what do we take cases? we take cases when the lower courts have disagreed about the answer to a legal question. it's what we typically call a circuit split. there are 13 circuits in the united states that cover the 50 states, plus territories. the circuits are not of equal size. some of them are bigger in number of states. some are smaller in number of states but bigger in terms of the number of people. but if you start from the proposition that we have to have either a circuit split or a split among the circuits and a state court, the highest state court, or a split among courts

generally before we take a case, what does that tell you? we take only the hard cases. and we take the kisses where reasonable people have disagreed. because you have to start from the assumption that if courts below that are always made up of judges who are trying their best and they can't find the answer, then the answer for us is not easy. you know, there's a lot, a lot of complaint at times i hear because we don't agree more and i look at people and say, why do you expect a unanimity of opinion when the reason the case came to us is because other people couldn't agree?

and so that is a fundmental difference from the othj other the other courts. in the other courts you get a certain number of case that's are right out on that margin, but the number is much smaller than the everyday work the as one of my colleagues once said about a case, the minute it comes to the supreme court, it's a supreme court case. as soon as we say, yes, we're going to hear a case, everybody revs up to tell us every side of the case. so it's harder because every case is on the margin. ruth? >> hi. is this working? great. i'm going to ask one last question, and then we're going to turn to some of the students. new jersey is a very do not let her go

>> why? >> not to nosebleed territory. new jersey is a very racially -- >> oh, no. telling me no is the worst thing in the world, you know? go ahead. go ahead of. start again, ruth. >> as i was saying, new jersey is a very racially and ethnically diverse state, one of the top three most diverse states in the united states with respect to racial, ethnic and immigrant populations. we know that makes a difference here in new jersey. it certainly defines and shapes the culture in so many ways. does diversity on the court make a difference? how and why? this is my last question. >> that's your last question. okay. then i get students. we represent the country. we make decisions that affect

every single person in the country. and sometimes in some of our decisions the world. we also supervise generally the practice of law in the country, and we're influencing the work of lawyers in every single profession there is in the country. and so to be able to represent all of those people, it's helpful with whhelp helpful when the justices have present among themselves as much and as varied an experience base as the country has. and it's not because the sitting justices can't learn about how other people are feeling or what they're experiencing because we do.

but there is a personal ability to explain an argument that you know if your colleagues haven't had that your voice can let them see it in a different way. i give a very simple, simple example, okay? number of years ago in a case called stafford, there was a 13-year-old girl who was in a no drug school. and it was reported through three layers of hearsay to her principal that she had taken an aspirin. that she was called in to either the principal's office or the vice principal or whomever was in charge and strip-searched to see if she had aspirins. she then came to court and sued because it was a state school for an unreasonable search and

seizure. the court was hearing the argument and i wasn't there so i'm talking about something i read about, okay? some of my now colleagues were asking her lawyers questions, the tenor of which basically was what's the difference between this and strip-searching to go to the gym and work out? just ginsberg was reported to have said after the argument that she feared that some of her male colleagues did not understand how it felt to be a 13-year-old girl and how important the sense of body privacy and sensitive that is at that time.

now, did it make a difference in the decision making? my colleagues are lawyers and they're judges and they based it on their view of what the constitution required and didn't. but i know one thing. there wasn't a majority dissenting or concurring opinion that insulted a little girl by telling her that this was no different than changing in a locker room. that itself is worthwhile. that you have people on the court who can tell each other what you're saying, how you're saying it is going to be hurtful. how or what you believe about others may not have a foundation. those conversations exist. will they influence the outcome? not likely. but they do influence the manner

in which we approach the issue. and that has, to me, importance. so that's why i think diverse tiff all kind -- i'm not talking about ethnic or religious alone but diversity in professional backgrounds, how people have grown up, what they've done with their lives is critically important and valuable to the experience of judging. >> it was nice to see you. >> you see. you still can. hello? hello, you guys. >> some of our students are now more than ready for their turn to ask some questions. we're going to begin with angela villanueva who has a question for you. angelo is a sophomore in the school of arts and sciences,

majoring in math. >> if my nose starts to bleed, i'll tell you you were right. >> angelo is here. >> all right. you plan and you plan. >> angelo is down here. >> i misheard it. go ahead. >> that's fine. [ speaking spanish ] we've heard the phrase that words cannot describe certain feelings but i hope you don't mind me asking, in what words can you describe your feelings during the moment of being sworn in as a supreme court justice? and how did you feel when you became one of the most powerful and influential latinas here in this country? >> it remains for me an

absolutely surreal experience. people often ask me, what does it feel like to be a part of history? and i look at them quizzically because it's not just that words can't explain it. it's that it doesn't feel real. and i fear that if i thought i lived that way every day that i would stop doing the things that i thought were right to do. so there is a piece of me that sort of pushes it out of my mind because it's not important to me everyday living. other than i don't walk around in shorts anymore because i'm afraid of the pictures people will take. when i'm in a restaurant and i see people's cell phone popping up from under the table to take a picture as i have food going into my mounouth, i stop.

you know, that sort of thing does affect affect you. but by and large, you can't live thinking about that. you have to live doing what you think is the right thing to do at the time. and so i don't think about it too often. what was it like when i first went to be sworn in? first of all, you have to understand that i was sitting in john marshal's chair. it is behind a protected glass enclosure at the supreme court. they only bring it out for swearing ins. a few days before i had signed the john harland, first john

harland bible. every justice since has signed it. when they gave me the book and i was reading the names, it really was like an out of body experience. how do you describe feeling that? and so here i am, and across from me of what would be either the justice's box for guests, which in a regular courtroom might be the jury box, okay, in that box were sitting -- was sitting the president of the united states. and as i got sworn in, all i could think about was, my god, thank you for this gift. because that's all -- [ applause ] and when i turned around to look at my family and friends and there were tears in everyone's

eyes, i knew that a moment had passed that i never imagined. i never dreamed of because from a kid from the south bronx who had no lawyers in her family, i didn't know a supreme court existed. so you can't droem about what you don't know about. and so -- [ applause ] -- i had lived and reach something far far beyond any dreams i ever had. and so that sense of being blessed was very real to me that day. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. our next questions come from -- >> hello. wow. you guys are really dedicated. thank you. you are really dedicated.

thank you. [ cheers & applause ] thank you. thank you. all right. i'm sorry. i'm in trouble. >> are you ready? >> go ahead. >> our next questions come from two students who have complimentary questions and i would ask them to come forward. one is majoring in political science. crystal is a major, a junior major in ie kolg at the cam den college of arts and signs. domeyola. >> thank you for being here today. my question is, as the first latino on the supreme court, do you feel pressured to set a standard? >> and crystal, if you ask yours azarel. >> my question is, what advice

can you give to young la tinas interested in pursuing leadersh leadership? >> i don't think i've ever lived my life feeling pressure from others. pressure is always inside of me. in that way anything i've ever wanted to achieve or do, i've done because it was a sight i set for myself. you know, you can't live your life for your parents. my mother wanted me to be a journalist. because she always wanted to write and travel the world. and so if i had lived her expectations, i can tell all of the journalists down there, i would have disappointed her. [ laughter ] no. what i do is asset a standard

for myself. i do what i think is important to do and that which i think makes a contribution. i said something earlier today that ruth told me she really liked, so i'll repeat it here. okay? every night before i go to sleep i ask myself two questions. the first one is, what did i learn new today. and the second is, how did i help or extend an act of kindness to someone. and if i can't answer each question and i don't fall asleep, i go on the internet. [ laughter ] i read an article or i think about a friend who i've been out of touch with or a friend who is in need and just get in contact with them by e-mail so they know

i'm thinking about them. with respect to the second part of that question, it's in keeping with the first, which is to be a leader, you have to lead a life by example. you have to show people the way to be better people. and that means not just being kind to the people in your life, even when they're not kind to you. but it means by doing things that help others. you define the agenda. you look at what needs to be done in the world and what you think your talents can help you bring to the world. and that will create the leader. because i have found that if you do good things, people will come

and help you do them. good luck to the two of you, by the way. >> thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> boy, it's hot up here. i'm really sorry. i see all of the fans and i understand why it's really hot. >> i have another -- >> sorry about that, guys. i'm going to go that way, okay? [ cheers & applause ] now, i'm going to drive my security really crazy. go ahead, sara, take the lead. all right. this is much easier to do. >> this is my first experience with the goddess. >> now, just -- >> i hear you but i don't see you. >> hello, guys. thank you. thank you.

okay. who is next? >> our next pair of students with complimentary questions, sahar and connie capone. would you come to the microphone? sahar is a sophomore and political science major in the school of arts and sciences and connie is a junior in the school of arts and sciences. her major is political science and journalism and media studies and she is minoring in french lang wauag language. sahar would you begin? >> good afternoon. my question is how does one balance their own personal opinions on a case but at the same time try to remain objective with the law and legal precedence? is there a balance between the two or are they distinguishably

different? >> well, let me start with a realization that you have to have as a judge. what are laws? laws are the society's definition of how it will balance the competing interest of people. so the first example that i give everyone is a law that affects every single person in this room when they go outside. you go to the corner, you stop at the red light. why? there's a law that tells you if you don't, you're going to get a ticket. all right? so why do we have that law and what is it doing? it's taking a bit of every

person's time, putting it into a pool and saying, you can't get to where you want to go as fast as you would like. you can't push penal out of the way. you can't injury them to reach your goal. everybody stops at the red light, gives us time, so that society and most of its people can reach their goals safely. so if you think of most laws, that's what laws are doing. they're trying to balance the competing needs of people in the society. if i make a different choice and impose it as a judge, i'm rebalancing something that's much, much more complicated than

my individual understanding. and i'm doing a greater injustice to the society that depends on the rule of law to help us believe rightly that it's a fair society. that it's a society not governed by the whim of one individual judge, but by a system of justice that asks its judges to respect that their view of what might be fair could be very unfair. and if your belief in the process of law the way i do, and that i believe that over time if laws are not good laws, people will change them. i know laws have changed in

response to court opinions. look at what happened to desegregation. a court segregated the society and a court unsegregated the society. took too long. took way too long. but we can and bad laws can be changed. they can be changed by you. and so for me the tension is not the one that you set for. i don't feel it in a tension the same way. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> connie. >> good afternoon. my question is how does your decision-making process work? do you rely on your own ethics, do you consider the views of the american public or is it something in between? >> you're going to be disappointed. i don't do any of that. [ laughter ] i read the briefs the parties

give me, i read the prior supreme court cases that inform the issue, i read the decisions that the lower courts have issued addressing the question. as i already told you, they're jeanly split. so i'm getting two sides of the story there. we have briefs from friends of the court. i read those. and after i've read all of them, i look at the issue and i deconstruct it. i try to break down its elements as a legal question and i put it together in the framework that i see the law as having created. and so it is a very, in some ways, academic process because i'm not relying on my ethics or on my own personal views. i'm trying to decipher from the

body of law that informs the question i'm addressing. what are the fundamental principles that that body of law is dictating. what are the values that it's setting forth? what are the approaches to the rights and remedies that people are seeking that the law has created. and so that's how i arrive at my answer. i know that sounds boring, doesn't it? >> thank you. [ applause ] >> the next question, i'm afraid it's going to be the last one. i apologize to the student we couldn't get to. michael gugen hiem, an associate major in political science with a minor in modern hebrew. michael. >> hello. >> hi, how are you? >> i'm fine. thank you.

>> that wasn't my question by the way. >> i doubt that. i don't think ruth would have let you up there. >> she wouldn't have. obviously there's a lot of political intrigue in the supreme court, a lot of powerful people are interested in the decisions that you come to and the effects that they have on public policy and commerce. so my question is, what if any effect does that political interest have on the court's decision-making process and what steps do you take to maybe isolate yourself from that political interest or is it just something that you and the other justices get used to over time? >> you know, you don't get on the court unless you're a concerned citizen. every single justice has had a career in which they've devoted their lives, in some form or another, to the public good. even when they've been in

private practice they have been involved in activities that do public service. we are, by nature, citizen lawyers. you don't work as hard as we work, reach where we've reached unless we've shown that to the powers that be. we get selected because we're the very best at some aspect of the work that we've done. and that work often includes public service. so it means that there isn't one of us who is unaware of political life. we're aware of it. we read the newspapers, we listen to the news. some of us are political junkies, others are not. but become an informed citizen doesn't get translated into now i'm going to vote the way the public wants me to. the gift the founding fathers gave us is