>> i am stunned and i'm sure you may be too, i don't want to put words in your mouth. you worked with state and local law enforcement as a prosecutor. right? >> yes, sir. >> and you would have worked with them in the full range of cases from child pornography to caseses, you name it there's a state and local officer at the table with federal officers, right? >> that's absolutely correct. >> why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle so resistant to giving state and local law enforcement officers any role at all in immigration? >> to the extent they are here, i guess you could ask them. i'm not sure i can answer for anybody else. >> well, in their defense, i'll give you the excuses that i get, that the statute is too complicated. that you can't possibly expect state and local law enforcement officers to understand the complexities of our immigration law. as if dui laws are not also complex. or rico. >> i'm not aware of that. i can't speak to that.

>> the state and local law enforcement officers you work with, did you think they were capable of understanding the complexities of immigration law? >> no, that someone on the other side of the aisle has that view. i just -- i don't know that. >> well, they do. let me ask you this. prosecutorial discretion. does it -- does it apply in all categories of law? you know, some laws require you to do something like register for selective service. some forbid you from doing something like possession of narcotics. and some laws, for instance, congress could make you issue us a report. are you able to exercise prosecutorial discretion in all three of those categories of law? >> well, i certainly can with respect to the first one. >> right. >> i know you would be on my case if i did with respect to the third one. so i would say no. and i can't remember what your second one was. >> the laws that force you to do something, register for selective service?

>> i mean, i don't enforce that law, registration for selective service. >> i know. you're a smart lawyer and you've got a broad background. i really -- all politics aside, i think it's important that our fellow citizens understand whether there are any limits to this doctrine of prosecutorial discretion because my time is up and i know that the gentleman from idaho is going to gavel me in just a second. there's a big difference between you exercising your discretion not to do a $20,000 fraud case in texas and your decision to confer benefits on that same group. those are two entirely separate legal concepts and regardless of who's in the white house and regardless of what job you and i have i do think it's important we have some bright lines so people understand what the limits of this thing we call prosecutorial discretion is. with that i'll yield to the gentleman from idaho. >> thank you very much. i now recognize the gentle lady from washington.

>> thank you, mr. chair. and thank you director saldana for being here with us today. many of my colleagues have talked about the terrible conditions in family detention camps and in detention centers and way have a detention center in my region in washington state, the northwest detention center in tacoma. i understand currently in the middle of negotiating the terms of a contract, and it's had to be extended. negotiations have had to be extended twice now. the firm deadline to wrap up is now the 23rd of this month is my understanding. there's been very little transparency in these negotiations according to some estimates. american taxpayers are on the hook for $300 a day per detainee. with all that money going to private prison companies. so why is there so little transparency in the negotiations like this that are taking place across the country and are you doing anything to open up the

process so we can see what's happening? >> i'm not familiar exactly with that. i can certainly give you more background after this hearing with respect to that particular negotiation. but no, we do want to have transparency. you know there are parties to a negotiation, usually it's up to those parties to come up with the final terms. but i will tell you that we do seek through all our meetings with all of our stakeholders whether in law enforcement or nongovernmental organizations or others, their views on how things can be improved. and i certainly am intending to -- i hope i can get out there but i want to get to more facilities to make sure -- i think we've communicated clearly to folks doing those negotiations to make sure that we're doing them in the way that ensures security but also humane treatment of individuals, whether documented or not.

>> if you have other information you're able to give me, i greatly appreciate it and if you're able to come out to washington state and visit, the facility, we'd appreciate that too. thank you. >> so you can have that direct experience. >> i'd actually like to do that. >> as a follow-up, there was an october 2014 gao report that i requested with a number of colleagues, identified three areas where i.c.e. is falling short in tracking and managing detention costs and expenditures. the three areas were one, collecting and maintaining cost data. two, ensuring cost is considered in placing aliens in detention facilities. and three preventing improper payments to detention facility operators. so do you agree that there could be improvements made in this area? if so, what steps are being taken to improve? >> i always think we can be more efficient. i preach that since i've joined the agency, we need to look for

efficiencies because as we well know, funds are not guaranteed from year to year as we have experienced firsthand at the department. but we need to make sure costs are allocated properly and we have staff trained in order to look for that specifically. and we do periodic audits and i'm not familiar with the report you're speaking of. i would like to read it also to make sure that we've addressed those areas you've identified. >> if we can follow up on that too. i appreciate that. >> and you know, there are a number of counties in my state in washington, including king county, our largest county, that formally adopted policies to ignore certain i.c.e. designer requests. so i know you've talked about this a bit before but i was wondering if you could explain your views regarding whether states and localities should be forced to comply with i.c.e. detainers? >> we are in the middle, as you

know and i've indicated earlier, of a cross-country tour of those areas -- of those jurisdictions that have refused to work with us. we are trying to assure people we're looking at priority enforcement. not just general, undocumented immigrant enforcement. we're looking at requests, not asking anyone to detain someone as we did before, beyond the term of their local jurisdiction sentiments. we are working to identify the areas we can work on, murderers sexual assaulters, those folks that present a danger to the community based on the facts and circumstances pertaining to a case. so it's a challenging job and presents opportunities for us to visit with our local and state

officials and not only them but nongovernmental organizations to help us allay their fears and assure them that p.e.p. is different and we're trying to work with communities to do it in the best way for that specific community. >> the jendle lady's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i recognize myself. director saldana it's great to have you here today. i understand how hard you work and the work you have is very important. i was an immigration lawyer before i came to congress and i worked representing aliens who are in the united states without documentation. and so i worked a lot with your agents. how many agents does your agency have? >> on the e.r.o. side about 6,000. about another 5,000 on the hsi side i believe. >> so about 11,000 total. >> agents. yes. or officers. >> you are saying that you are here to enforce the law, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yet you spend most of your time explaining to us why you don't need to enforce all of the

laws, which seems really interesting to me. you gave the analogy of fraud cases. when you were a u.s. attorney you would have decided that maybe a $1 million fraud case is not a good thing to pursue because of your resources, but a $5 million fraud case would be something that would be worthwhile pursuing. is that correct? >> that's one example. >> let's use that example. what would have happened to the crime in your area, if you you would have announced that anything between zero and $5 million in fraud you would not be enforcing as a federal agent? as a federal officer? >> again i used that as an example. >> but it's a great example. >> well, we would work to try to find a local jurisdiction that might take the case but they are strapped as well. >> what if you had the sole authority as a u.s. attorney to enforce the law regarding fraud? we know that's not the case but if that was the case, that as a u.s. attorney you had the sole authority to enforce the law in

that area, in that region you're covering, what would happen to the fraud rate in that region if you announced publicly that between zero and $5 million in fraud you are no longer enforcing. >> i presume there might be more activity in that regard. >> you would presume or doesn't your experience tell you that it would be a fact that there would be more activity in the -- in the commission of fraud between zero and $5 million? >> using that analogy, i would say so. let me just correct something. i'm sorry, it's very hard for me to let things like that go by. i've not spent my time expounding on the reasons why executive action is good thing or not good thing. i tried to respond to your questions. that's all i'm doing. >> that's fine. but that is what you've spent most of the time doing. my concern is that that's what this administration has done. they have told the people from other countries that there is a limit, there is a threshold that they're not going to enforce the law. in fact, you just showed us a card. can you show that again?

>> sure. >> that card is what you use. can you imagine if you had a law enforcement agents in your area that decided to have a card like that about fraud. and on that card about fraud, it would say that no case be higher than -- below $5 million would be enforced in that area. that every time that they arrested somebody with fraud, they were taking that fraud card out, that card out, showing that these crimes are no longer going to be enforced by the law. you know what would happen in that area, the number of fraud cases would go up and number of people committing fraud would go up and number of people who would think they could get away with fraud would go up. would you not agree with that? >> yeah. except you're talking about criminal activity in fraud. and you're talking about a civil enforcement system in the immigration laws. >> what if fraud was just a civil activity, would the number of civil activities would go up? the violations -- a civil violation is still a violation of the law, whether it's a

criminal activity or not, it's still a violation of the law. >> that's true but i'm worried about the impact on public safety. a civil violation is not the same as a criminal violation. >> so you're saying that the united states is now safer because we are allowing more people to come into the united states illegally? is that what you're saying? >> i disagree with the premise. >> that's what you just said, you just said you're worried about the safety of the community. i'm worried about the safety of the community. one last point, you have said several times that congress has to extend a due process to the people here without documentation, is that correct? >> yes. >> you are aware that the i.n.a., sections 235, 238 and 245 -- 241, explicitly state when we should have expedited removal of people who are here without documentation, are you aware of that? >> yes. >> so that's what you should be doing. one last question. it's really important, keep hearing about these stories about what's happening in all of these detention facilities.

would you not agree, if we did expedited removal if we actually took care of the law, if we actually were enforcing the law, that these families would not be held in detention for a long time we would be able to expedite their cases, we would be able to figure out who should be here, who shouldn't be here, and they could go back to their home countries, and actually live in a better environment than in a detention facility? do you not agree with that? >> i agree that we need to prioritize and families are not in general going to create a public safety risk. >> not in general. >> no. >> so we should allow then any fraud under $5 million. thank you very much. >> our destation is on a case-by-case basis, congressman. >> i don't believe that they are. they are not on a case by case basis. you just showed me the card, that's not a case by case basis, you're deciding where a whole class of people should stay in the united states and frankly people who work under you are not happy about that decision. they're not happy with what the president decided to do. and it's unfortunate that a law

enforcement officer would come here and testify before this committee to say that it's okay to allow people to violate the law, whether it's civil or criminal criminal. and i'm done with my time. >> that's a misrepresentation of my testimony. >> we now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. >> welcome. director saldana, i thank you. i've been listening to the testimony up in my office that you presented here today. i guess in -- i'm very interested in this dhs, civil immigration enforcement priority. this card. you say you carry this card with you? >> yes. >> has it been entered into the record, the card? i'd like officially to enter the card. and who has this card with them? >> all our officers that are out there making niece decisions. >> all of your officers.

so all your i.c.e. agents have these card with them? >> yes, generally. >> and it states the priorities of the administration. let me ask you something, does the lawsuit in the fifth circuit have any implication in terms of your ability to carry out these enforcement priorities? >> the one in south texas deals only with expanded daca and the initiation of daca. >> only has an impact on expanded daca. >> that's my sister agency. >> it doesn't have impact on these -- >> not on enforcement. >> these are priorities issued by the secretary of homeland security on november 20th of last year. >> yes, sir. >> those are still in place? >> yes. >> and you're carrying them out. so a couple of things. number one there is concern among those of us that have advocated for a changing of the priorities, and are thankful for the changing of the priorities in terms of making sure there is a clear line between i.c.e. and

immigration, and local police departments. we understand that you have a new program that you have yet to unveil. c.a.p. i think you're calling it. we look forward to that. . i just want to state for the record, i think if somebody is selling drugs, somebody is gang banging, somebody is out there murdering, something is doing harm, somebody is creating or committing a serious felony, i think we should look them up and give them a fair trial, but if he's found guilty, sentence him, jail him and as soon as he's finished, he's jail time, deport him immediately from the united states of america. now that's very different than if i'm driving my children to school been here an extended period of time and they are american citizens and i have a tail light out which unfortunately secured

communities and many local law enforcement departments were using. they were using secure communities as simply another way of going out and taking their immigration policies locally, and saying we're just going to arrest everybody that we know lives at this trailer park probably is undocumented and works in this community, and then hand them over to you without any discretion. so i'm happy to hear your clarifications you made before and the clarifications you've made today in terms of making sure that there is a difference and that local jurisdictions -- many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will always say that the experiments of the democracies are always best conducted at the local level of government. well, local level of government in chicago and throughout jurisdictions in the united states of america, we do not want immigration policy carried out by our local police department. we think that creates a division between the population and their

safety and their security and the police department's ability to be able to carry out. when they say serve and protect, we want them to know it's serve and protect. i'm happy to see you brought this list of priorities that feature the agents because a group of us last week put out this family defender tool kit that we are issuing, people can download it from my website and from the websites of other members of congress and it says you can tear this out do not deport me because i'm eligible for daca or dapa and we put all of the things that people should put together just in case. i think this is wonderful. . you take the gutierrez tool kit on the one hand, and you put the birth certificates of your american citizen children for example, and put your work history, and you put your visa or your i.d. from your country, and if you get stopped by of the

agents he look the at this. you've got the information you put them together, and you're not a priority for deportation. i think that's the kind of discretion we should be using. now again, just so that we don't get confused, if you're driving a car, and you're drunk you go to jail, and you get deported. if there's a tail light out and you're taking your children to the emergency room because they are sick, then you should be able to proceed. if you can prove that you are not a threat to the society and not a threat. i'll just end with this. i'll thank the gentleman for- -- look director saldana, you've got a tough job. you've got to keep the criminals at bay but at the same time you've got to have an immigration policy that protects american families from the devastating effects of our broken immigration system and i thank you for your testimony. and for your incredible service to our nation as a u.s. attorney, and today as a director of i.c.e. thank you so much. >> gentleman's time is expired and i recognize the gentleman

from florida -- oh, sorry. mr. qom ert. >> thank you director for being here. in november, november 20th, judge andrew hennen i know you're familiar with the case and order, he said this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the dapa program and to the three expansions additions to the daca program, also contained in the same dapa memorandum. he said it does not enjoin the previously instituted 2012 daca program, except for the expansions created in the november 20th, 2014 dapa memorandum. there was an advisory dhs advisory that said dated march

3rd, specifically between november 24th, 2014, and the issuance of the court's order, uscis granted three year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000, we now know it was 108,000, individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 daca guidelines and otherwise determined to warrant such relief including the issuance of three year eads for those 2012 daca recipients that were eligible for renewal. these preinjunction grants of three-year periods are deferred action to those already eligible for 2012 daca were consistent with the terms of the november guidance. do you know who issued that november guidance that basically indicated it would be okay to issue three-year benefits? >> no, sir.

you know i.c.e. does not have responsible over the daca and dapa, that's our sister agency citizenship and immigration services. so you don't care who issues the orders or the benefits that say you can't do your job and deport people who are here illegally? you don't care? you don't look to see who's responsible or benefits that are violating a court order? you just -- you just say, oh, well, they've got the benefits. even though it violated a court order, i don't care they are illegitimate? you don't care who issues those -- the guidance or the illegal order or the illegal benefits in opposition to the court's order? >> i care about violences of court order sir, but that's not something i was directed to do. that's those who confer the benefit which is citizenship and immigration services. >> if someone has benefits that

are fraudulent or illegal, do you say, oh, well, i guess we can't deport these people because even though they are fraudulent or illegal, i'm going to recognize them because i never look beyond the face of the benefits that people that are illegally here have? surely you don't accept fraudulent or illegal benefits or visas allowing people to stay, do you? >> no, i don't like fraud. >> well, i wouldn't think so. i come back to the original question, your job is in part to deport people who are illegally here, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, let me just ask you and never ask a why question, but why you didn't deport people who got three-year benefits when those three year benefits were illegal? >> i am -- i'm not aware of that being the fact.

i have not seen anything that says that someone -- that was granted status or lawful presence under the 108,000 has anything to do with me. we're enforcing the priorities. that's how we're going about our business. >> well judge hainan made clear that this court -- if this court had ruled according to government's requested schedule it would rule without the court of the states knowing that the government had granted 108,081 applications despite its multiple representations to the contrary. yet they the government, stood silent even worse they urged this court to rule before disclosing that the government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals despite their statement to the contrary. if you don't like fraud, does it bother you that you're homeland security department that you

work for has actually instigated a fraud upon the united states district court for the southern district of texas? >> representative gohmert, with all due respect, i would appreciate you not yelling. i'll answer your question as well as i can. but my -- >> thank you for your dilatory answer, but i'd like an answer. >> if i may. that whole issue of the 108,000 as you said is in the middle of litigation. i cannot comment on that. i don't represent the entire plan ply piano ply of federal agents coming within the united states of america. i can only speak to questions regarding i.c.e. and i'm glad to do so if you've got one that connects the subject to i.c.e. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. >> i'd ask the question -- mr. chairman i'd like to ask unanimous consent to give her one more chance. you're telling us in this

hearing you have no idea where the november guidance came from that authorized three-year benefits? >> as they say in federal court, asked and answered. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you very much. >> just want to make sure because i don't believe that. >> ms. saldana, to correct the record, we heard from mr. gutierrez who is very eloquent on this issue and is very good at making statements here in our proceedings. we heard that you -- we're deporting a lot of people here that are with traffic offenses but yet we should be deporting people with duis. are you aware that over 13,000 people were released out of custody last year because of duis, and the previous year it was 15,000 people? so between the two years we've had close to 30,000 people being released into the united states because of the orders of this

president, with dui convictions? >> well, i don't know specifically the numbers you're talking about, but i will tell you that i explained earlier that a good portion of those are court ordered releases. the others are made on a case by case basis depending -- >> you're aware it's close to 30,000 people have been released from i.c.e. custody with dui convictions, or -- >> i presume you're looking at something we provided you. >> all right thank you very much. >> i yield the time to the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hi director, thank you for coming. november 20th secretary johnson issued the memorandum establishing priorities for apprehension, detention and removal of illegal aliens. my first question is if an alien was illegally present in the united states, but did not fall within the enforcement priorities would that alien still be subject to removal? >> it could be because as i pointed out earlier, there's a provision in here that says even

if someone doesn't meet the priorities, and but you believe they are a threat to public safety, you're permitted to go forward with that to speak to your supervisor and see if that decision -- different decision should be made in that instance. that's on a case-by-case basis. >> if somebody is not in one of the criteria, you obviously would need some affirmative evidence that they were a threat to public safety. i mean, there are people who are threats that we may not have evidence for so the absence of evidence doesn't mean that they are a threat. in that situation, if there's no evidence, then under these enforcement priorities, there would be no action whatsoever against that individual who was here illegally, correct? >> no evidence of a threat, that's correct. >> how many aliens who did not fall within the priorities have been arrested, detained and removed from the united states since secretary johnson announced those policies on november 20th? >> well, as i said earlier, they did not go into -- at least with

the apprehension and removal guidance did not go into effect until january 5th. and -- >> do you know since january 5th? do you have a number or something you think you could get for us? >> i think i could get it for you. >> we would appreciate that. has anyone in dhs determined how many removable aliens fall within the priorities for removal set forth in the november 20th memo? >> at large? in general? >> that's correct. >> the estimated 11 million? >> right. what percentage of that would fall in the enforcement priorities? >> i'm not aware of a study in that regard. i can confirm that but i'm not aware of one. >> is it your opinion that you couldn't determine that? >> on 11 million? it would take a long time. >> what do you think -- what would be the ballpark? could you get us into the ballpark so we know numbers? >> i think now we're in the area of pure speculation, sir, i'm

sorry. >> so, if you can give us whatever information -- i mean if there's been anything done with that, that would be great. is i.c.e. going to do anything to remove aliens who received a final order of removal before january 4th, 2014? >> do anything -- again, as i said, if that person doesn't meet the priorities as in someone who was here before january 1, 2014 if they're a public safety threat yes, we can act on that to put them into removal procedures. but generally speaking they don't fit one of the priorities unless we have some -- as i said -- >> that's true though even if somebody already received a final order of removal, say december 2013, gone through the system, law has been enforced, you then would say, unless there's additional evidence, that the person could propose a threat to society, that order of removal is essentially rescinded? >> well keep in mind that

there's always a process through the immigration courts that someone can even go and contest that order. so -- >> well, right. but let's put that aside from the enforcement perspective, anything before november -- january 1st, 2014, it's final order of removal, if not accompanied by evidence of a threat to public safety that would mean that i.c.e. would simply move on? >> or national security. that's correct. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. do we not have any -- all right. thank you very much, madam, for your time and for your service to the nation. and i know you've been getting it from both sides here. so it's been an interesting hearing. this concludes today's hearing. thanks to our witness for attending without objection. all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. the hearing is now adjourned. >> thank you, sir.

coming up tomorrow here on c-span3, irs commissioner john koskinen testifies on health care law implementation as tax filing season comes to a close. live coverage gets under way at 10:00 eastern. then live at 2:00, u.s. ambassador to the united nations, samantha power, appears before house appropriations subcommittee to talk about state and foreign operations spending for 2016.

next c-span's conversation with new member of congress republican ryan zinke of montana. the former navy s.e.a.l., and pac-10 football player talks about being raised by his grandmother, playing football, and fighting in iraq. this interview from the congressman's capitol hill office is about 25 minutes. >> congressman ryan zinke, republican from montana. your grandmother had a huge influence in your life, how so? >> she left home at 14. she grew up on a small farm in minnesota. she went to school, she was the first in the time, this was in the '30s. not many females went to college. so she worked as a hand maid got a teaching certificate. and the only job she could find in the great depression was a one-room schoolhouse outside of

richie, montana. and she's always kind of my guide. you know growing up she was very independent. she met my grandfather when he was working the fort peck dam. kind of a cute story. there was a man camp there. and went by the little school. and there was two suitors. both of them competed for my grandmother. and my grandfather chopped better wood, and they got married, and then -- but my grandmother was a tremendous influence in my life. >> i lot of aunts and uncles, correct? >> you know, my dad was born in glasgow, my mom was born in glendive. i was born in bozeman. montana is an enormously large state. about the size from washington, d.c. to chicago plus two miles. and it's a pretty diverse state. although we don't have a lot of people in it, but i've always said i can speak east and west

of montana, and my family stretches across the whole state. >> what do you remember about growing up? what were some of the experiences that shaped who you are today as a teenager? as a young boy? >> i grew up in a small town. it was a logging and timber town. fairly blue collar. the zinkes are three generations of plumbers. there was never a lot of money. you know around the house. but there was a lot of spirit. there was a lot of hard work ethic, you know. you woke up before the sun came up, and you worked hard. you know that idea of hard work sacrifice, family, is you know, is part of the values that stick with me today. and as i kind of move forward in my life, i was the kid that was at the gym at 15 minutes before the coach at 5:00 in the morning. i think i worked harder than

those around me because i didn't have as much talent. throughout my life, you know, as a s.e.a.l. i probably was never the best jumper, or explosive expert, or shooter, or sniper, but i always knew who was. and i always surrounded myself with what i think was the finest talent. and i was -- i've always been honored to lead men and women of unbelievable commitment, sacrifice, and arguably on some of the most complex missions the military faced. >> your parents separated. how old were you? >> i was in third grade. parents separated. the separation was not a friendly separation. so my daughter, i've always made sure that maintain a very cordial, and a friendly relationship with her father. and it's been -- it's helpful that way.

my relationship with my daughter, both myself and her father, walked her down the aisle at her wedding. and that meant a lot. >> when did you first have an interest in politics? >> probably in the third or fourth grade. you know i always would kid around about being governor of montana. i was always in student council. i was student or class president, you know multiple years. you know looking back i ran some pretty good campaigns. i listened. but i liked the idea of service. i liked the idea of doing things for others and getting -- accomplishing goals. so at a pretty early age, you know i thought about really service, and i have been on a team most of my life. between a football team in high school, we were successful state champions, undefeated.

went to oregon had a successful career as a team. and then the s.e.a.l. teams you're only as strong as your weakest link. politics is very much a team sport, as well for a higher purpose. but you can't operate independently, or you can but you don't do it well. and if you operate as an individual, more than as a team, then i think the end result is you won't bring the ball to the field. you won't be successful on the bat. field. and you won't be a successful politician and you won't get things done for a higher purpose which is to make america more secure. to make sure our future for our children is more secure. to make sure that we protect opportunity and it is about equal opportunity and not equal outcome. and that's an important part of the american value system that's worth fighting for. >> let's talk about college. you went to oregon. you played football.

why there? >> pac-10 you know as a kid growing up in whitefish you know fairly small town. you go to eugene oregon, it's in the pac-10 you're playing against the teams that you watch on saturday. good program. some of my best friends today, you know, a result of my college career rich brooks neil and the coaching staff that time were as much of a coach, a mentor and a father and certainly eugene and whitefish being in a forest-type community, outdoors, it was a good fit for me. >> big debate in the nfl about concussions, as somebody who played football. what are your thoughts about that? what should parents be aware of if their son or daughter plays football and these who move in to professional leagues? >> i think it is a concern. the way you play the sport.

the head contacts i think, can be limited successfully. it kind of evolved certainly where i was playing, the helmet and the head were a lot bigger and more pronounced part of the game. i think a lot of it is techniques. and make sure at an early age you don't use the head as a battering ram. that you take -- the coaching has to be right. but i think looking forward, the game can evolve where we see less concussions, less head contacts, and bring it back to its origins which was kind of a rugby type of a game. but when you're wearing a helmet like the one behind me with oregon that can be used as much as the weapon as it can for protection, and there's a difference. >> any injuries along the way? >> well, i was undersized for a center.

i polled as the center, beside me was gary zimmerman phenomenal player. just amazing athletic ability. scott shepard played left guard. i had some ankle problems going through my last game. and i started four-year letterman, my last college game in football. i was 212 pounds as a center. i used to wear three sweat pants so i'd look like i was, you know, heavier than i was. but made for some pretty long, long days. and when you face a 320 pound nose guard and you're 212 pounds, it makes for a long day. >> did you ever think about the nfl? >> you know, i -- not really. because i don't think the opportunity was there. you know, early, everyone has aspirations. and a lot of my friends did play

in the nfl. again, i was probably not the best player but i know who was. and i surrounded myself with great, you know great people great team. i don't think that my play was the caliber ofto be successful in the nfl. >> so why the navy? and why navy s.e.a.l.s? >> you know there was a mentor in oral gone by the name of admiral dick who commanded the "enterprise" during the vietnam war and i graduated degree in geology. he asked me what am i going to do? go out to the coast of oregon, become a geologist specialize in deep sea operations. look, if you're going to dive, have you considered being a navy s.e.a.l.? they dive. but i think it fits your personality. at the time, no one really knew what a s.e.a.l. was. this was before the books, before the movies. and he brought a recruiter down.

i took a number of exams. both physical and written. and he said, well you know this is a volunteer program. if you don't like it you can leave at any time. which he was very truthful about that. he was a pilot. but the program itself was he was truthful. you could leave any time. but the program was hard. as it should be. because when you wear the trident of a navy s.e.a.l. i think there's an expectation that you're never going to quit. that you're going to complete the mission successfully. >> hard, rigorous, tough training, so what do you remember about the training before you became a s.e.a.l.? and what was the most difficult thing for you personally? >> well, you know in my life i was both the instructor and a student. and it's a lot more humorous and controlled on the instructor side than it is a student. the basic course lasts about six months. numbers, we were looking at about 3,000 candidates kind of

whittle them down to about 750. maybe 150, and 200. about 90% or so will leave the program voluntarily. it means they have the skills. the aptitude and attitude and skill set to be a s.e.a.l. but they choose to quit. so a lot of the s.e.a.l. training is mental. never to quit. keep persevering. and i can teach a kid to do push-ups, to pull-ups to swim but it's much more difficult to look the heart within a candidate, and make sure he doesn't quit. and that's what the s.e.a.l. training, the toughness part of being a s.e.a.l. is important. >> could you hear your grandmother talking in your ear saying don't give up, stay with it? >> well, for me, you know, the nights were cold.

i was -- certainly the water. i grew up in montana where winters are hard. the swim team as a kid and we didn't have a pool. in whitefish. we swam in a lake that was fed by glacier waters. so, you know swimming was pretty cold. but i never was colder than when what i was on the s.e.a.l. teams. i actually was never colder in actually doing operations in the s.e.a.l.s, as cold as training was, some of the s.e.a.l. operations i went on, you know far exceeded the demands that were placed upon me in the training part. which is a testament of why the training has to remain hard. >> you've been on a number of missions and i'd love to hear some stories. but behind me is something from iraq and saddam hussein's palace. explain. >> well, that was a panel, a panel from a four-panel door

that was saddam hussein's bedroom. it was explosively breached, and that was the small part of it that is still, you know, still intact. so that was -- it was deputy acting commander in special forces in iraq in 2004. so, i was responsible for you know, a lot of different missions and what was going on. and that was one of the nonvalue items that were brought back. >> what was it like to be in iraq? what was going through your mind during that mission and during the early stages of the war? >> well, iraq is a very complicated country. it's sophisticated. some terms. but very basic in others. iraq has a sunni population which is very proud currently has been disenfranchised. it has a majority shia population that for many years was -- was, you know put to a

side as a kurdish population up north. the current crisis of what we face to a degree as a result of creating a vacuum. it's a battle within islam as much as a battle between east and west. it's not going to go away unless america, you know, leads by example. and this administration acts with resolve, and shows other nations that we're there, we're committed to peace and we're committed to making sure our allies have everything they need to be successful. >> how do you think the iraqi people view the american people? >> you know my experience, i fought with the kurds, with the sunnis, with the shias and almost all parts. i think there was a great deal of respect between the sides. i think they knew we were not there to colonize. we spent a lot of effort, you know looking at how to make their life better. how to make the area stable in

the long-term. and a stable middle east is not only good for america, it's good for the world. >> was it the right war? >> i think -- i think it was a difficult call. certainly, you know, i was on record of looking at going in to iraq from the point of view of a person who is executing policy, and not making policy. my job is to make sure that when we engaged in the mission, we won. my job is to make sure the men and women had all the right equipment. all the right training and the right rules of engagement to win decisively on the field of battle, and also to eliminate collateral damage. we went on a lot of missions where there was collateral damage and i would sit down with the imams and talk about what happened. the koran is very different than the bible. but ultimately it's people. and i think as a u.s. commander

i think you're obligated to make sure that what you do is the best for your force and the mission. >> what is more difficult serving as a navy s.e.a.l. or raising money for a political campaign? >> oh, being a navy s.e.a.l. was a great job. i kind of laugh sometimes at being a congressman sometimes is more difficult than being a s.e.a.l. and that you -- as a s.e.a.l., you can watch things get done. you can -- you can engage. you have a terrific team around you. normally, you had the resources to win, and you can watch progress being made. on the hill, on the current, you know polarization, there's progress being made. it is fixable. it is absolutely fixable. but progress is not as rapid as what you would like. you've got to make sure you exercise some patience.

and some is just political rhetoric. some people don't want the facts. they don't care about the facts. what they care about is an agenda. and you know i never looked i never went through a red or blue lens. it is always red white and blue with me. and as a former, you know, seal commander, i never asked the political affiliation of the folks around me. all i cared about is how good they were. were they skilled? were they committed? did they have the right training? and did they have the right gut and grit to do what was necessary? on a political landscape the freshman group coming in i think has enormous amount of talent. there is enormous amount of talent on both sides of the aisle. but, again what my job is to surround myself with a team, make sure we have the right

resources to move the ball forward. >> let me throw out a hypothetical. let's say democrats want to raise taxes slightly and you want budget cuts in other areas. can ryan zigy hold firm to principles but also compromise on an issue like taxes or spending or any other matter domestically? >> i think there is some values that are nonnegotiable. and those are faith, family, constitution. i hold those values. and some of that is my background as a seal commander. i swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. i gave that oath as a seal commander. i gave the oath as a state senator. and you was proud to give that same oath in congress. so to me that constitution itself is nonnegotiable. now how we approach, you know, making america more secure and how making the economy, you know prosperous so we can afford a strong military, so we

can afford to keep the promises we've made infrastructure, social security and elderly programs and medical, it's going to take a strong economy. so i'll sit down and reach across the aisle on how to get there. but i don't think you have to ever sacrifice your values to do it. is there places where tax reform should be done? absolutely. but my philosophy has been of the three components of our economy. you have taxes. you have cutting you have spending and then you have growth. it is much better to grow the economy. you'll gain more in a shorter amount of time if we grow the economy. i think the growth is really about paying energy independence. and my experience in the middle east think of the change the

world would look at and change in our life as americans if we were energy independent and weren't held hostage in the middle east about our energy needs. critics for liquid natural gas to europe so they would not be held hostage to an aggressive russia. and we have everything in this country to be energy independent and i want all of the above. but that's part of this vision. i'm a huge fan of teddy roosevelt. i was when i was a kid and going forward. and what i like about rows investment roosevelt is he thought big. he built the panama canal. montana enjoys a lot of federal lands. so he had the vision of looking at what america should be and could be. because we weren't a great power at the turn of the 19th century. we are today.

i like the idea that roosevelt thought big. america has to think big again. the problems are real. we need to think big enough to find solutions to them. and we can. the american spirit is still strong. >> how do you structure your life in washington back in montana and with your family? >> well, i travel a lot. when montanans come and knock on the door at the office i try to be here. i'll be in a committee and i'll walk out of the committee and say hello. and montana is still eye-to-eye which is important. to me it's important that we have a conversation over a cup of coffee. we talk eye-to-eye. i kind of joke that montana is on the streets. and since my family is spread across, you know montana i try to stay in touch with what's going on and try to use the internet a little more and

skype. cell phone coverage in iraq is better than the cell phone coverage in montana which that needs to be fixed. i spend a lot of my time on the road with my family. it is here. it is important to make sure that i'm a father. i spend a lot of deployments away. and to a degree, you know i want to see my children, my grand chirngs grandchildren. they're in virginia beach. so it's nice to seat grandkids. it's nice to have them up on the hill once in a while. i'm just proud to have them with me. >> is the job what you expected? >> i had to re-adjust my expectations of how fast we can get things done. it is bureaucratic. i was surprised at the amount of bureaucracy in washington d.c.

part of the hurdle we have to get over is the decisions being made in washington by unlektelected bureaucrats. they're not bad people. they just don't know the issues on the ground. they couldn't tell where you montana, where it is on the map and the difference between butte and bozeman. yet, decisions are being made that affect people across america from people that don't understand what it is to be out in america. you know there are these victims and regulations and how they affect normal people's lives. and so i think the further we can push that decisions down or if you're going to make a decision, i think it's a fair request, a fair trade that when you make a decision you should understand what the consequences that decision are on the ground. and decisions are made here

every day. this one size fits all doesn't work. what it does it is stifling what the one value that america has done better than any other nation in the history of the world is innovate think out of the box. and one size fits all, you know, top down management, it stifles the very thing that made america the shining light of every other country, the envy, is our ability to innovate, think out of the box bring new products. look at things a little differently. the american way. and that we have to protect. >> finally, you talk about your grand mother and family members. was there somebody in your life who influenced you, that might have set you on the path to where you are today? >> certainly my high school coach, you know, i think taught me that if you worked hard you could be successful. he gave me an indication that i

have some talent. but if i work hard -- really it's been a coach relationship. i was in the seal teams. i came in when there was a lot of vietnam instructors there that this been through combat. and they've always been very kind. they've always been a mentor to me. i have mentors on the hill here. some great great leaders that have gone either way that kind of bring me into their way and go this is the path that we see for you if you want to go on this path. you'll have to earn it like everybody else. but you have a great opportunity. and as a result, i try to stay disciplined in my message in a football sense. i try to stay between the hashmarks. i understand that i represent everyone in montana. montana is one congressman. and i represent not only the republican side, i represent the

democrat side, the independent side, the tea party side, the union side. congress represents america. we articulate the values and the needs and desires of your district. but the purpose is to make america better. and there's a lot of ways that we can, a lot of paths to paint our goal. we're all sent here for one purpose is to make sure america remains strong, secure, and prosperous. >> so can we see new leadership down the road? is that something you're interested in? >> well yes. i've always interested in contributing where i can. leadership, certainly, i think if i work hard that is probably attainable. it's wherever i can fit in and

it held the team. >> congressman from montana, thank you very much for your time today. >> great to be here with you. pleasure. >> coming up to night here on c-span3, we'll hear testimony on on going violence in yemen. then campaign 2016 coverage continues with the discussion on hillary clinton and senator marco rubio's entrantsce into the presidential race. then we sit down with former ambassador to iraq, chris hill, to discuss the u.s.-iraq policy in the iran nuclear deal. and later we'll show you several of our conversations introducing new members of congress. >> next, a house foreign affairs subcommittee hears from former u.s. ambassador to yemen gerald fire firestein. he discusses the administration's partnerships and plans for