i am originally from new york. i am a product of the public schools in new york. so, going to those schools -- outside columbia as an undergraduate, going to those schools were really my first exposure outside of new york and got those degrees and then spent really a career before the bench trying to look at the workings of our institutions. and studied relations between the branches of government at the brookings institution and at georgetown.

then because of senator daniel patrick moynihan, who had been my professor at harvard, and i was his teaching assistant, he was on my oral exam. because of him, i became a judge. >> we have got some videotape of you from 1993 testifying. where would you have been? >> i can tell you exactly what i was doing, that day in fact. i was accompanying ruth bader ginsburg, meeting with the senators on the hill. senator moynihan had asked me if i would work with her. she did not need any work because she was so fully prepared and everything. and i made every meeting with her that was scheduled except one, with barbara boxer, because the time i was opposed to meet

with harbor boxer with then judge ginsburg, i was to testify before the joint committee on the organization of congress on matters of judicial and congressional relations. >> it is a short clip. let's watch you -- i guess this is 21 years ago. >> in the area of statute and the interpretation of statutes and the revision of statutes, we are so intimately involved with each other's processes, a think it certainly makes sense, and certainly the constitution does not preclude in any way that each branch try to have a better understanding of the other's work product with an eye toward improving that relationship. >> what do you say to somebody watching this? we are in the weeds. their eyes glaze over. you have a new book out called "judging statutes." how does it relate to the average person? >> i think it relates to the average person this way, the subject. if you ask the average person what does a judge do, the average, intelligent citizen would say "interpret the constitution."

and of course that is correct. but that is not all what judges do. what judges spend a lot of time doing, and the supreme court's docket, two thirds of its cases involve doing this, is to interpret the laws of congress. so, you have got laws from the affordable health care act.

-- the chair of the committee under the judicial branch of the conference was one of the committees of the conference and district judges and they have various committees to work on administration of justice issues. when the chair of that committee

asked me if i would assist him , that ising an agenda how i really got into it. since i had the political science background, i was asked this.k with them on i had known him from my years on the first circuit as a law clerk. together, we designed an agenda and that led to a series of , judges andojects legislators, courts and congress. the project i had designed with them on facilitating improvement between the branches with respect to making sure that when the courts of appeals have opinions that are of interest to congress, congress would know about it. >> i think you point out there are only two former members of

congress that are judges anywhere in the federal system? >> that is right. when i was working with the committee on the judicial branch, there were many judges who were former -- many legislators who were former judges. there was abner mikva, james buckley. donald russell. there was charles wiggins. and so on and so forth. now there are very few judges who have had legislative experience. and as members of congress, there are a number of judges who have served on the hill, like richard eaton. but in terms of legislators who

had judicial experience, you have alcee hastings. you have senator cornyn, who was on the texas supreme court. it is a very limited number of people in both branches who have had hands-on experience in the other branch. >> can't help but ask though, if you look at the statistics of the numbers are former members of congress and the senate who go into lobbying that makes a tremendous amount of money, how much of this is tied to the fact that judges in the context of the city do not make that much. your chief judge. what is it, $150,000 a year? >> no, it is an increase. but the key is public service as

a calling. those of us who are in it really feel privileged to be in it. it is certainly true that i have observed the phenomenon where i am in a court room and everybody arguing the cases are probably multimillionaires. but what a great system it is that we are in it not for the money, but we want to serve the public good? i consider it a really precious, treasured honor to be in the system. >> where is your court located? >> we are located in downtown new york city at 30 foley square. it is now known as the thurgood marshall courthouse because

thurgood marshall served on the second circuit and had chambers in our courthouse. the designer also designed to be supreme court courthouse. our courthouse has been the site of many exciting, important cases. pentagon papers case, example -- >> then it went to the supreme court. >> then it went to the supreme court. it also came up through the d.c. circuit, parallel cases, "the washington post" and "the new york times." >> you have been chief judge for how long and what does that mean? >> i have been chief judge from most a year, september 1. the chief judge is responsible for the operations of the court. it is a seven-year term.

we have 291 persons working in the second circuit, and that includes the judges, clerks, and the administrative people. we have a budget that ranges -- a local budget that ranges between $16.5 million and $19 million. plus there is money paid centrally by washington, d.c., the salaries of the judges and the clerks. that is another roughly $12.5 million. >> i do not want to put words in your mouth, but i would assume you are not primarily conservative? >> i would say to label is to ignore. >> this guy, senator moynihan

does not just appeal to people on the liberal side. i'm good to show you a clip of george will talking about him here. >> he was throughout his career the senate for a leading intellectual, which is like being the tallest building in topeka. [laughter] [applause] during his senate tenure, he wrote more books than most of his colleagues read. [laughter] what is a senator? 1% of one half of one of the three branches of government. unless of course you are mr. moynihan. then things are different. his life was, as we shall now endeavor to make clear, one of the broadest and deepest public careers in american history. >> what is it about the memory of senator moynihan that can appeal to all political sides?

>> i think that the reason that he is still a figure -- and it is really quite something. a week does not go by when somebody isn't quoting him for some proposition or another. i think part of it is he appealed to reason. and he reached out, regardless of political and party affiliation to talk about ideas. you will never hear him speak ill of somebody else. it is always about the ideals. and i think the fact that he also would always try to put himself in the other person's shoes was part of it. i will give you an example. i worked on the commission for

reducing secrecy in government. reducing and protecting secrecy in government. his ideal was to open up lots of the documents that had been sealed historically. he was trying to figure out a way to get jesse helms, who was on the commission, on board. so he came up with the concept. secrecy is a form of regulation. and senator helms was not a fan of regulation. so he came up with this concept which, organizing concept, which would appeal to somebody who was, one might think would have been perhaps opposed to releasing historical documents. however long they might have been under seal. i think it was that -- it was that quality about him. he also had the capacity to

bring out the best in people by trying to figure out, well, what do you want? what are your ideas? and working with them. it was that capacity to reach across the aisle and to serve. his credibility was enhanced by the fact that he served presidents, regardless of party. >> he served president nixon. >> he served president nixon. he served presidents ford at the u.n. in the months before he passed away, he had worked on a commission that george w. bush had put together on social security. i believe it was that capacity to reach across the aisle. >> i want to go into the background for you, growing up in new york. before i do that, i want to show you some video of somebody that

looks an awful lot like you. he also went to columbia university. he is currently on the massachusetts circuit court. tell us who this man is when we see him. >> i have had the privilege of knowing judge breyer since 1980 when i served as his first law clerk. i was on the court of appeals for the first of circuit and also appeared before him on numerous occasions and my opacity of the u.s. attorneys office as an advisor for appellate litigation. one comes away, after having known judge buyer, with a sense that here is a man whose goal is excellence, but excellence in the pursuit of justice, and i think that one can only feel good about the future of america when people such as judge breyer are considered for the supreme court.

>> who was that man? >> that man is my identical twin brother gary. he is a judge on the massachusetts appeals court. i think he is an extraordinary judge. also a very kind human being. he has had an amazing career. he has been on the court, doing basically what i do, but in the state court system, for 10 years, where he is very highly regarded. he has been a prosecutor and the department of justice for 20 years, where his cases included the prosecution of richard reid and the shoe bomber. he is an author, scholar. his book "inside the criminal process" has been translated

into russian. his work on securing justice for juveniles resulted in a book with the brookings institution. he has been very actively involved in boston, in civic engagement, public engagement programs. and like me, he is a c-span addict. >> go back to the beginning. what were your parents? are they still with us? >> my parents are still with us. my parents are my heroes. my father is 88. he is a refugee from nazi germany. he came to the united states in march of 1941 with his mother. his father had died on crystal night 1938. my mother is from brooklyn. she is 85. her parents were from russia.

and my parents are really my heroes. they have really given all of us, for children, the sense that anything and everything in life was possible, and whatever you do, you should do it with modesty, with concern for others, and with the idea of trying to make the world a better place. my father worked in a hot, un-air-conditioned place for 40 years. he went to night school. >> what was his job? >> he was an engineer. i can remember when he would come home from night classes. he never complained about anything. i am often asked that i do a lot of work on immigrants and trying to provide counsel for immigrants and i think part of the inspiration as i can still remember the voices and accents

of my youth and those who came to this country, trying to make it a better place, who love this country. not that they thought they would make this country a better place, but they thought of this as a great nation they wanted to help make even greater. >> your other siblings, what are they, boys, girls, what are they, what are they do? >> i have a brother who was in computers. he is in connecticut. very smart guy. i have a sister who lives in new jersey. she has raised a great family. she worked several years ago on cnn as a producer. we are all very close. >> what about mom? what is the background for your mother?

>> my mother raised the kids. and what a great job she did, in terms of attending to each of our needs. you know, i never -- i can't remember a single crossword my mother ever said to me. that is pretty remarkable. i do not think i am idealizing it. i was talking not that long ago to my siblings, and none of us could think of anything she had said that was unkind. we had the blessing of having two very supportive parents. >> what is the difference -- and he was older, gary or you? >> i am eight minutes older. i used to think i was five minutes older, but about 10 years ago we saw the birth certificate. but he says he kicked me out.

anyway, professionally, we do now basically the same things, just in different systems. one in the federal court, the other in a state court system. >> what would you tell a lawyer that is going to come before your court to not do? >> i would say -- that's a great question. i would say don't caricature the arguments on the other side. if a lawyer is to have credibility in a court, certainly with me, i went to have the sense that that lawyer is fully respectful, while advocating for his or her point of view of the other side.

at the same time is not exaggerating the other side's arguments. also another thing not to do is not to know the record. if i ask a question about something that happened or that was in the record, i would want the lawyer to be fully knowledgeable and prepared to talk about that record. so, and then the third thing for me is answer the questions. which is to say, don't think that if i ask a question, don't answer it with an answer you want to give to another question. please answer my question. >> here is a clip of a man i know you disagree with. watch a little bit of this. this is from a 2012 interview. that will give us a chance to get into this book you have written. let's watch.

>> it is said in some supreme court opinions that sometimes, you know, the letter of the law is contrary to its spirit and its spirit must prevail. that is nonsense. the letter of the law is the letter of the law. that is what we are governed by. we are not governed by some judicial determination of spirit. which could be anything. the statement comes up often. it is an empowerment of judges. judges can sibley say, oh, yes, the text says that, but that is contrary to the spirit of the law and we're going to go ahead and do whatever we like. that is just not democratic self-government if people can't have the representatives write a statute which is to be applied as written. >> here it is. the new book, "judging statutes." and you talk about textualism, as he was talking about it. could you two be farther apart

on this? what is the issue? >> let me begin by where we agree. the issue is, how do you interpret a statute if you are a judge? do you look only at the words of the statute? or can you also look at the body of materials that congress produces in the lawmaking process that accompany the statute? like the conference committee report or the committee reports. the conference committee report is often the final document where both chambers come to an agreement about what it is that they are doing. and often there is a vote on the >> can i interrupt just a second? could you define what a statute is? >> a statute is a law congress.

it could be the civil rights act of 1964. it could be the hobby protection act of whatever year that deals with protecting memorabilia from being copied or coins from being copied. it could be the clean air act. when congress passes a law, that is a statute. so, where justice scalia and i, i think, would agree is that where the language of the statute of the law is crystal clear, then of course, fidelity to that text as it is written means that you don't have to go beyond the words of the statute because it is clear. so, if i said to you that there