today will eventually suffer from diabetes. and in the african-american and latino communities, that number goes up to almost half. so it's not surprising that a study published just this month found that obesity could now be an even greater threat to america's health than smoking

this is about an hour 10 minutes. >> mr. and mrs. salahi, private citizens from the commonwealth of virginia and attended the white house state dinner on november 24, though they were not issued invitations, they are

here to provide their account of the events of that night. we would like to welcome both of you to this committee and ask that you summarize your joint statement for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and committee, i do have an opening statement for you. to the honorable members of the committee on homeland security. prior to being contacted to invite us to speak, we asked that our attorneys reach out to the committee and meet with various staff members and provide them with key information to assist the committee and review of relevant homeland security issues. we understand the attorneys met with your staff as well as representative king and his staff and provided them with phone records, emails and other relevant documentary evidence. we have continued to provide relevant documentary evidence and be as helpful as we can to

the important security concerns you are investigating. we also understand the committee received our attorney's letter, we intend to assert our constitutional right to remain silent if we are subpoenaed to appear before the committee. we find it unfortunate that the committee required us to appear in person to invoke our fifth amendment rights under the united states constitution to remain silent even though it is against the eggets call rules of the d.c. bar to do so. congressman waxman chastised this will exact conduct in another hearing. on advice of counsel we invoke our right to remain silent and will decline to remain silent regarding the circumstances of november 4, 2009. we appreciate the offer from representative thompson's staff to present ourselves out of the public spectrum. we understand that to do so would afford us no legal

protection and would not be sfare to accept the offer knowing that we would invoke our right to remain silent. our counsel offered last week to the committee an opportunity to provide further information and make a full attorney proffer to the full committee or any interested members of all relevant information. that offer was delinchede by chairman thompson's staff. we again offer the offer for our counsel to meet with the members of the committee and assist in this review of important homeland security issues. finally, my wife and i say we are strong supporters of the men and women here in uniform here and abroad, we have great respect for the presidency and members of the secret service and nothing that transpired on november 24 should take away from the services that the united states secret service performs on a daily basis.

>> thank you for your testimony. i remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question the panel. i recognize myself for the first set of questions. and this is to either one of you mr. or mrs. salahi. did you attend the white house state dinner held on november 24, 2009 as part of a reality tv stunt? >> mr. chairman, i am under a nondisclosure agreement and should not discuss matters related to the television matter. >> well, that is not the answer. let me give you another chance

to -- >> mr. chairman, on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my rights to remain silent and decline to answer your question. >> you have the absolute right. did you receive an invitation in the mail to attend the white house state dinner? >> mr. chairman, on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question. >> can you describe for the committee your inner action with the secret service officer at each check point and how you walked from the street to the white house. >> mr. chairman, on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer the question. >> were you on the secret service officers' list to enter the white house grounds? >> i respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer the question. >> did the officer at the first

check point verify your names on the security list? >> on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your questions. >> what form of identification did you give the officer for verification? >> on advice of counsel, i decline to answer your questions. >> did the officer ask you probing questions about your biographical information such as your full name, social security numbers, date of birth and citizenship? >> on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right to decline to answer my questions. >> you are absolutely within your right to assert your constitutional rights to do so. i will now yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york, the

ranking member. >> i see no need to ask any further questions. i ask if any members of my side yield? >> i would like to echo the ranking member's earlier comments. why weren't they on the list, who deals with that. and i can't ask the questions of the people who made the decisions and i think today's procedure is a charade. >> gentleman yield back? i yield to the the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i perfectly understand that your statement that our witnesses are well within their rights to cite their constitutional rights. and that is true. and under normal circumstances, i would object to us even calling them here to have them

actually do it personally. but this is an unusual circumstance in which we are talking about the security of the president of the united states. as he said just last week, we are in a war. because we are in a war, we have to take our responsibilities seriously. that includes the white house. that includes the secret service and that includes everybody in the white house, including the social secretary. it is almost as if we had given the social secretary greater protection than key advisers to the president on policy matters. but i agree with your decision to call them forward because of the unique circumstances that we are talking about, this goes to the question of protecting the president of the united states. and with all due respect to our

witnesses, you have the very right that you asserted here. but to have engaged in conduct which undercuts the seriousness of our effort to protect our president and protect vital elements of this government as some sort of reality show or personal pique is an extraordinary afront to the seriousness of the issues before us today. you say in your last statement that you have great respect for the men and women of the united states secret service. you did not show that. you say that you have -- strong supporters of the men and women in uniform. they put their lives on the line every single day to protect us against any threat to this nation and for people to make a

joke of it, to think it's not disrespect here to take the name of men and women in uniform who are protecting this nation and suggest that somehow suggest that what you do provides support for them. i was going to sit here and remain silent until i heard that last paragraph of your statement. but to suggest that somehow what you're doing shows support for our men and women is an abomination. the constitution protects fools. the constitution protects stupidity. the constitution protects errant thought. thank god it does. i yield back. i expect the secret service to take a bullet.

i don't expect the secret service to take a bullet for the president's staff. we are unfortunate that a good man like director sullivan who has had to suffer so much public humiliation and embarrassments over this event all because of your actions on that day and i wasn't going to say anything either but the fact that director sullivan had to take all that grief from us and so much from the public was unfortunate and i hold you responsible for it and i >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for going forward with your constitutional duty during an investigation of homeland security. i do want to say that there are

two constitutional provisions involved in this hearing. one is the constitutional provision known as separation of powers where the president does not and endlessly did not, has not endlessly on most occasions have his personal staff come to the congress. yet there is yet another provision, one that i respect profoundly, that is the fifth amendment, a precious bill of rights amendment. i do want to say, mr. chairman, that no one has a right to invoke the fifth amendment by proxy through their lawyer or by press release other in secret. so what you did, mr. chairman, you were duty-bound to do. this couple is being investigated by federal authorities on criminal counts,

including the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. therefore, they have every right to invoke their fifth amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. and i want to respect that right and ask no questions of them. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder, for five minutes. the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> thank you very much, and i might add my preeshes as well gá,)rr

fort hood, texas to the incident that occurred on christmas day, we know that the security of the homeland is not a joke. to the salahis let me say in all respect, the security of the president of the president of the united states is not a joke. your actions or alleged actions on that fateful night made a mock erie of this country, our security and your commitment to this nation and a mock erie to any representation that you are pates of this country. iminsensed for your dignity for i will never challenge that, but for individuals who can be so reckless to believe they could enter on property of the united states hosting a dignitary from a foreign nation of whom we owe

an obligation to secure, the vice president of the united states and the president of the united states with reckless disregard for the perception and the reality of what would be seen as a breach in security for terrorists of all walks of life to be able to make the assessment i can do it, too. i'm saddened and disappointed and i'm outraged and i would ask you to check your patriotism and find out why you had to do something of that level. with that in mind, i do respect your constitutional rights i respect them because i respect this nation and i respect the rights and responsibilities of the of of the congresses and this committee and i will ask the question that both of you can answer. you had a duty to inform the secret service officer that you were not invited guess. you dressed the part. you did not receive an official

invite. your names did not appear on the guess list and your invitation from michelle jones was denied. what more did you need in order to understand that you were not invited? >> on the advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my rights not to answer your question. >> after being told you had not received an invite, you began plotting and discuss a scheme dressing up. this is not the first time as i understand it that you were considered party crashers. this time you provided false information to a government agent secret service officer who borrow the responsibility of protecting the safety of the safety of the united states. i respect the fact that you respect the secret service. my question is, you did this to forward your own goal. did you falsely provide agents to secret service agents. >> on the advice of counsel i

decline to answer your question. >> you knowingly misrepresented your status as invited guess and you tricked them into pleefing you were guests gaining access. makes you trespassers in furtherance of your initial crime in tricking a government agent. after scheming your way into the event you socialized with the president, vice president and various invited guests. then posed for photographs on your facebook page for the world to see. you could have endangered the safety and life of the president of the united states, vice president of the united states and the visiting dignitary. my question to you is did you have any consideration for the beach of security that you were engaged in at that time. >> i respectfully assert my rights to remain silent. >> let me offer to say that

thrur two criminal actions under 18 u.s.c. 1, the intentional misrepresentation to a federal agent which under the present allegations suggests occurred and the intention national trespass on federal real property which apparently it seems to be. to the salahis we are pleased you are here today. i don't believe it is a mock erie or without purpose. i'm saddened that we have to say to the american public there are those who aren't concerned about the security of the homeland. i thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. >> i yield my time to mr. mccaul. >> this was the first white house state dinner of this administration with a dignitary head of state from india who obviously is a target

neighboring to pakistan where the terroristsr with the president of the united states who we know is a target as well. this is a very serious matter and advancing this reality tv show agenda and exposing at the same time the vulnerability in our security and in the white house. while i appreciate the two of you showing up today and exercising your constitutional rights, it's important we examine the white house's role in this and what role the social secretary played or didn't play in allowing you access into the white house to get right up to the president of the united states. now in this case, obviously nothing happened but we were lucky. what if we aren't so lucky next time. i want to ask you a couple of questions. were you invited to the state dinner? >> on the advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my rights to remain silent and decline to answer.

>> did you submit names and social security numbers before going to the white house dinner? >> on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right to answer your question. >> were you waved in by an official from the white house to get into the state dinner? >> on advice of counsel i remain my right to decline to answer the question. >> i echo the sentments of my colleague from colleague that this is a disgrace to the secret service. we are? a time of war. you say you support the troops, but they are in harm's way protecting us here at home. and we're going to continue to investigate this matter. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for

five minutes. >> you know this has become a real distraction side show in this -- in the history of this country. and i spoke it's what happens when we need to pay closer attention to things and not focus so much on the people among us and that's what is going on. there are three sides to this story. mr. sullivan came and addressed his side. this is another side with no answers and we aren't going to get any answers obviously, but i agree, i agree with mr. king and my republican colleagues that i think ms. rogers or someone from the white house needs to come and tell the third side and if so doing we can understand what happened and to protect the president. and i want to extend my

invitation as the chairman of the oversight subcommittee to the white house to come and have a chat with us. i think that makes a lot of sense. now as far as the salahis go, time is the only thing that we have of value here. and i can't believe how much you are wasting it and the taxpayers' dollars. it's incredible. i'm not going to answer the question because you aren't going to give me an answer. if you are patriotic and americans and truly love this country, think about your actions. that's all i will tell you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas or do you want to pass on your time? the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. deal for five minutes.

>> i said most of what i wanted to say. there are very real threats to this nation and we are expending extraordinary amount of resources to mitigate those threats and we know about the christmas day attack and there are other attempts that have occurred in this country that we are all all too familiar with and the fanth that we are expending so much of our time and valuable resources dealing with this shameful stunt i think is truly unfortunate and i want to restate one thing. director sullivan, it still pains me to see me sitting here septembering responsibility and there are a lot of good people in the secret service and a mistake was made and reputations have been hurt because of this event, career people trying to do their best trying to keep this nation best and here we are today to deal with this issue in this manner. so i have no questions, mr. chairman, because obviously it would be a fruitless effort to

ask any questions because we wouldn't get any responses. i want to restate what mr. king has said, we want to have the white house social office here to explain their role in this situation. we need to know what they did and why they did what they did and again perhaps take some of the heat off the secret service and director sullivan who stood up and accepted the responsibility for the entire event. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson. >> we haven't heard anything from mrs. salahi. have you ever attended an event at the white house? >> on advice of counsel, i respectfully assert my right tory main silent and answer your question. >> were you advised to attend an event at the white house, one of which is needing approval to

attend? >> i assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question. >> did you receive the information confirming your approval to attend the event and from whom? >> i assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question. >> have you not reserved your right and spoken to meet any media outlets about your attendance at the white house? >> i respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question. >> when you were advised your name was not on the list why did you continue to attempt to enter when you knew you did not have final confirmation? >> on advice of counsel i assert my right not to answer your question. >> when the criminal process is evaluated and concluded, will you return to this committee and testify and tell us exactly how you entered the white house?

>> yes. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes , congressman. >> you put this country in an incredible position by crashing that state dinner. terrorists are out there. and they are trying to hurt us. we saw that on christmas day. they are watching, looking, looking for vulnerabilities in our security system and you presented them with a textbook of how to get access to the president, vice president, foreign minister, the prime minister of india. again, i can't tell you how much you have hurt our country and

what you have done to expose us to the dangers that we are facing from the terrorists. they are still out there. we saw that in my home state of texas. saw that on christmas day and again by your actions, you have given a road map that shows the vulnerabilities that you can exploit and done incredible damage to our country. and that's all i got to say. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. >> i want to break through here and get at the basic issue if i may. who would have thought that two normal-looking people -- look at them today -- dressed to the t, these beautiful people would have broken through in some

manner, shape or form the home of the president of the united states. i want to mention, mr. chairman, to all the proponents of racial and ethnic profiling, that this case involving these two individuals, the salahis, just goes to show that while you're looking for a certain kind of person fitting a certain profile, you're going to miss @ @ h o)n#@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r

>> i respectfully assert my rights -- >> were you there? >> on advice of counsel -- >> are you here right now, mr. salahi? you got to get an answer from your attorney on that? your attorney bobbed his head up and down when my good friend from pennsylvania was discussing the possibilities that someone from the white house should be here also here testifying. you can do it all you want. you aren't going to take the heat of your clients. no one's going to take the fall for them. there may have been something wrong going on and maybe the white house made a mistake, but they're not here to plead the

fifth. >> mr. pascrell -- >> i'll continue. mr. and mrs. salahi, i believe the entire committee wsh we can move from the fake nature of this issue and concentrate on the security breach itself because if you two folks sitting here from patterson, new jersey, long robed with those hats on the top of your head, i wonder if you would have gotten through as you swished through in front of the cameras. your presence is required specifically so you could answer the events of that night to the events of that night. this committee gave you every opportunity to speak behind closed doors, did it not, mr.

salahi? did it not? >> you did, but you didn't afford us any legal proiks. you wanted us to speak versus our attorneys. >> we did give you that opportunity? >> without any legal protection. >> and yet, you continued to evade every opportunity to present your side of the story. the fact that you now appear here and are unwilling to speak to any details and i associate myself with the words of mr. lungren who put it very plainly, simple and to the point the fact of the matter is you used the secret service to say so many nice things about them and what you have done is defy the will of authority. this whole episode has been a

stunt and a charade on your part to gain attention and not right so desperately you speak. i want to turn my attention away from you because i don't believe that you have anything to offer this committee and it is my hope that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. the issue we should be concentrating on is the failures in security. we do not know -- we now know there was at least one other uninvited guest that made it into the white house that night. there was another person. the fact that was never disclosed by the secret service during our first hearing. that individual was carl oost allen. >> the gentleman's time has expired. for the record, let me indicate that we have sent a request -- we have sent a -- we

are getting feedback from the mic. [inaudible] >> somehow we are having technical problems. the chair recognizes mr. austria for five minutes. >> let me say i will keep my comments brief. i concur with what has been said. this homeland security

committee, as we try to focus on homeland security issues that are important to this nation. let me just also re-emphasize what has been said on this side of the aisle. the u.s. secret service has the responsibility to physically screen individuals, its officers have no role in determining whether someone has been inappropriately excluded from or included on that guest list. and i think if we want to get to the bottom of what has been raised in questions, we need to get cooperation from the white house. the fact that the white house social secretary, ms. rogers, declined to testify in front of this committee leaves the committee out there unanswered as to how we can correct this problem and we need to pursue that and that issue isn't going to go away. and the answers we are getting from our witnesses, i don't think we are going to get additional information. with that, mr. chairman, i don't

know if any of our members want to use my time. i would be glad to yield to them, if not, i will yield back the balance of my time. >> i would like to just remind the members that when mr. sullivan was here, he indicated that his office, the secret service had sole responsibility for the vetting and the security of whatever names that were provided to them and that the witnesses here, their name was not on the list according to director sullivan's testimony. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. and mrs. salahi, i have been deeply ambivolent about these proceedings, i almost voted against the subpoena that brought you here today and i

would not have asked the question but because of your ill-advised appeal to patriotism. we have spent 45 minutes and it would have been devoted to the unemployment of this country or the threats we face around the world. but you chose to appeal to patriotism. so i want to talk for a second about the fifth amendment right that you assert here today, which your appeal to patriotism would indicate that you put some value on. you have the absolute right to do so, but let's be very clear. you have no obligation to do so. you choose to assert your rights under the united states constitution. just as director sullivan when he sat in that seat made a choice. he could have engaged in the age-old celebrated washington

game of finger pointing and the blame game of c.y.a., but he chose to be a man of honor and to take responsibility and to take some professional risk to put himself in professional jeopardy. i understand what you are doing and i celebrate your right to do it but let's be clear about the choice you are making. you are making a choice to limit your legal jeopardy which your attorney has rightly advised you to do but you are taking that route rather than help us understand what for its silliness and absurdity was a real threat to the security of the united states. you could choose not to assert your rights against self-inkrim nation or choose to and let's be clear. you are choosing to limit your legal jeopardy under a right we all celebrate and appreciate as

opposed to assist in the open and fair airing of some things that could conceivably save the life of the president of the united states. my question has nothing to do with the events of november 24 and i give you a.m.le time to consult with your attorney in answering this question, given the nature of the choice that you are making today, would you not reconsider and consider airing the information that you have to assist this nation in the protection of the president of the united states rather than asserting your rights under the united states constitution? >> through our counsel, we are ready to tell you all the details, but through only our counsel. but if you want to know the details, they are ready to tell you. they're ready, but it's not going to come from our voice but from our counsel. but they're ready to tell you.

>> mrs. salahi, would you at this point in time reconsider your choice to testify personally or will you continue to assert your rights under the constitution? >> the advice of whatever counsel suggests for me. >> i have no further questions. i yield back my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. >> it is right for us to look into the security breach. the protection of the leaders of this country is absolutely critical for the security that they must have. it is imperative that this committee look into the security overall of this nation, the salahis, undocumented attendees at a christmas party or state dinner and that is a tremendous

breach of security that personally i believe the process was put in place by the white house and ms. rogers, to make an environment where the salahis could take advantage. and they took advantage of that process that ms. rogers put in place and the white house put in place. this committee voted pretty much on partisan lines to protect ms. rogers. and i find that did he test tabble. i want to associate myself with mr. king and what he said. but the salahis took advantage of a environment that the white house themselves in my opinion created. they were undocumented attendees. we have a lot of undocumented attendees in this country that are also security risks. we aren't dealing with illegal

aliens in this country but we must because it is of vital interest to this country. i appeal to my colleagues on the democratic side. let's stop protecting these i will legal aliens in this country and let's be serious about national securi forward in a manner that not only will protect the president and all the leaders of this country but will protect this nation against attacks, not just attacks by going to a state dinner, which is a security breach and a very egregious one. but we have have many at our borders every day that we must look into, we must attend to because the security of our nation depends upon it. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. cleaver for five minutes. >> i would like to associate

myself with the earlier comments of the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, with regard to racial and ethnic profiling and i have no questions of these great americans. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the chair recognizes ms. titus for five minutes. >> i understand that the salahis were out in my district this past week at celebrity host at a nightclub in sees ars palace and while you were there, i hope you were having fun, you were asked by the press what really happened and you responded, dig deeper. while this committee is trying to dig deeper in hopes of strengthening our security, you have chosen not to assist us and

i think that is very unfortunate. you have a rereal opportunity to help us with important oversight of our secret service and our ability to secure our homeland and yet you have choicen not to. your activities have activities have exposed a real flaw and i wish your legal counsel had said yes, let's try to fix these problems and make it better. i'll make one more attempt, i would just ask you, are you at all concerned that your actions might inspire other people,@@

surrounding the white house state dinner on november 24. based on the fact that the question doesn't have to do with the circumstances surroundings these events, i respectfully decline to answer your questions. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. >> i won't ask any questions because we aren't going to get any answers. i would like to associate myself with the comments about the need to invite the white house about this serious security breach and i yield back. >> ms. kirkpatrick for five minutes. >> i'm disappointed that you did not appear before us when you were invited december 3. the importance of that hearing

was for us to understand what happened so we could quickly act to correct that to protect our president. appearing almost two months after the incident is just not acceptable. as we saw on christmas day, we have a very real threat to our citizens, to this nation, to our president. and it is a responsibility of each one of us as a citizen to be vigilant and to report any breaches that we see in our security system that could cause people to come in harm's way. as a former prosecutor, i respect your right to assert your fifth amendment rights. i do have questions that i hope i wish could have been answered today. but i will submit them to the committee for the record. thank you. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes gentlelady

from michigan, ms. miller, for five minutes. >> i was listening to my esteemed colleague from new jersey, mr. pascrell, when he said look at these beautiful people. they may be beautiful on the outside but as we went through the martin luther king birthday, people will be judged on the context of their character and that's the way they will be judged in what they are doing here today. mr. chairman, i have the great honor and privilege to represent a district in southeast michigan arguably the ground zeroove of the economic challenges facing our nation. we have 15% unemployment in our state and on top of all of the heartbreak that is happening in my beautiful state, then on christmas day, we had this terrorist attempt over the skies of detroit where the terrorists have now seen the battleground

as an assem met try call way and that was in seat 19-a over the skies of detroit. i knew people on that flight and if that flight would have exploded over my area there, would have spent my time going to an awful lot of funerals. so it is almost surreal for me to be sitting here today looking at people who wanted to get on some tv show called "the desperate housewives of washington, d.c." in the light and challenges that we face and i wish this congress was taking up. at that, mr. chairman, i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. souder. >> part of this concern with this process and we have held many hearings where people have taken the fifth, we don't isolate one individual or two individuals in the course of a case when there is an ongoing

case. we get them together and do it together or we would have done it at the first hearing or waited until we had some more information. the chairman referred to that third person. where is bravo? where is the company that did the contract that apparently may have filmed them getting their hair done, getting their clothes ready and been part of this process? we have talked to nbc. why aren't they here today with any video and other individuals who may have been implicated and maybe some of them wouldn't get fifth amendment protection, why are we just having one couple that clearly is the firestorm center clearly put our nation and everything we have heard today potentially at risk by exposing things, by showing weaknesses and behaved un patriotly? why if we're after truth why didn't we do this all together

and is bravo coming and nbc coming and other potential witnesses as well if this was filmed in advance and there was cooperation in the media to do a scam on the united states government, we need to do more than just pick two individuals who were participants? mr. chairman, are we going after any of them, subpoenaing them? >> just for the record, majority and minority staff has already met with bravo, nbc, all those, everyone has indicated that they would be perfectly willing to provide us any and all tapes, copies of documents relative to this investigation. >> are we planning to show the tape or any of that or have a discussion with other members, because this has been interesting of them taking the fifth and showing the individuals and they don't want to share. but obviously we have information that would be

interest to the public much more than taking the fifth. are we going to do this in public? >> i think the question is relative to the two witnesses here today. they are the persons who perpetrated the breach. the other individuals, nbc, bravo, others, have provided tapes and other information. we would be more than happy from a committee perspective to make the request that they provide it and any member of the committee at their leisure or whatever can review those tapes. >> reclaiming my time. i don't mind them being embarrassed even though i have concerns about the hearing. the questions that were asked today we already know. if we have the tape of what they look like, where they went by, what they showed, it would have been relevant to show that in this hearing since members were

asking questions about information we already have. >> we don't have the tapes. they have been offered. we have met with all those studios and they have offered them. and i will be more than happy to request them. as you know, the salahis have been very up front in their interviews on the different networks so it's no secret what has been said. >> mr. chairman, can i ask a question? >> sure. >> why, if they offer the tapes and some of the answers to questions we are asking today are on the tape, why don't we look at the tape before we ask them snf in other words, some of the questions are asking, how did you get by, what did you show and so on, they are presumably on the tapes. why couldn't we look at the tapes? >> the information and questions we asked are not on the tapes. clearly we will have to have the witnesses for that.

>> mr. chairman, would you yield? >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. kilroy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i share many of the sentiments that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have stated here this morning with respect to these witnesses. but i would like to ask these witnesses a few questions despite their apparent unwillingness to cooperate. did you have a public relations agent with respect to any reality or unscripted tv show that you have been involved with in anyway? >> pursuant to section one of your subpoena, i'm only come peeled to answer surrounding the circumstances of the state dinner on november 24. the question is not relevant to those events, i respectfully decline to answer those questions. >> did you have a public relations agent with respect to

any of the actions regarding the preparation or attendance, your attempt to get a ticket to the november 24, 2009 state dinner. >> i respectfully assert my rights to decline answer. >> you think the public relations agent invokes you the right to self-inkrim nation. >> i decline to answer your question. >> do you have a talent agent with respect to your attempt to get a ticket at the state dinner? >> i respectfully assert my right to decline to answer your question. >> has anyone else paid for your makeup or clothes that you wore to the state dinner on november 24, 2009? >> on advice of counsel, i assert my right to decline to answer your question.

>> it would be self-inkrim in a tower to answer who paid for the clothes you wore to the state dinner? >> on advice of dinner i assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question. . >> on the advice of counsel, i respectfully reserve my right

to answer your question. >> to you regret any of your actions that you took and the resulting problems that caused the white house and others? >> on the the id by sub -- under the advice of counsel, i respectfully reserve my right to not answer your question. >> you do not feel any regret for the problems that you have called. that is what i would surmise from that. your intent was simply to attend the white house state dinner at the invitation of someone at the pentagon or other agency of united states government. you claim that this is a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. are you willing to forgo any financial gain that may arise through this incident including appearances, books, bees, or television opportunities such as any reality tv shows? >> i am only compelled to

respond to questions are on the circumstances. i respectfully decline that answer your question. >> i think that these witnesses have a right to invoke the fifth amendment against self- incrimination when it relates to criminal activity. something that would incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. i also think that they me be offering the fifth amendment question that do not so involved such jeopardy. i ask that we consider what response we should have to these witnesses. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i thank the witnesses for their testimony and the members for their questions p. i would remind the witnesses that the member of the committee

may have additional questions for you and we will ask you to respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. just for the committee members, we have another item to take up as soon as the hearing is adjourned.

now, south carolina governor mark sanford's final state of the state address. in 2009 governor sanford admitted to having an durham marital affair. after leaving the country without informing state officials. in number of legislators have called for his resignation and lawmakers in the state house officially rebuked him last week. the governor spoke the state capitol in columbia, south carolina. >> ladies and gentlemen, constitutional officers and south carolinian is it is an honored to be with you tonight to deliver my view of the state of our state but as i have done in the past i would first ask we pay tribute to those south carolinian who died fighting in the middle east and afghanistan over the past year. their deaths are a reminder to everyone of us of how short and

fragile life can be and begs that larger question of what are we doing to both honor their sacrifice and live the gift of life each one of us has been granted. their service is also a reminder to everyone of us particularly in these trying economic times of how important it is that we look for ways to serve others. there are little things here we can do that can make a big difference as for instance this year as one of their initiatives they decided to make a difference in a community in kenya where in one of the biggest obstacles to life was that which we take for granted, clean water. each member of the congregation was given what looked to be able to love them dewater and the challenge to empty it and resell it was simply by forgoing soft drinks and coffee over the couple of weeks leading up to christmas. 50 cents here and 75 cents a there doesn't seem like much of

a sacrifice but a cumulatively it enabled that church to provide five water purification machines that ultimately would save 15,000 people or provide water for 15,000 people there in central africa. or take more locally, you know, with their green fields and his team at the altar gospel mission are doing in the lives of homeless people just a couple blocks from where we are right now. if every person volunteered just one day a month it would be worth anything the government might do in the way of social service so here in the new year let's recognize many families across the state and across this nation are indeed hurting in these particular economic times, that there is a lot of need out there in some cases unimaginable levels of need as we see the tragedy of he the unfolding. and it begs one simple question. can we follow the soldiers examples looking for ways to surf? in fact under the category of

service for the men and women in this chamber, representative ted pitsor is back from afghanistan. his wife, christina and father are here with us and i would ask you not only offer a round of applause for his service to the country but that you match it with a prayer for his safety and if you like it and christine know what you stand to be recognized? [applause] [applause] >> and finally, the fact that each of the soldiers on a diluted to earlier by in service to their country is once again a reminder freedom is not free and this year's list of heroes goes

as follows and out of a point of reference not to become episcopalian but if you might stand as i read these names i would appreciate it. private first class jason watson, staff sergeant ralf, corporal brough and mcgee, a specialist abraham wheeler iii, lance corporal christopher folks, specialist demetrias filleted, specialist jerry, jr., private first class jeffrey watson. thank you for doing that. i appreciate that. on this topic of thinking i have historically think the state worker someone in the private sector and oftentimes the first lady will come ask them to stand and be recognized for the different contributions and to my what i would like to do for one last time this continue that tradition. first to recognize a steelworker

whose representatives of so many who do their work with a recognition or praise. berry works had tried and tape and will be part of the program at the new facility in north charleston, and i would ask that you join me in recognizing and thanking him for that important work and for frankly presenting so ably all state workers across the state. barry, if he would stand and be recognized i would appreciate that. [applause] [applause] >> we've also been joined tonight by maxine white and artist in the upstate and reminder of the creative talent and innovation found in the private-sector. she reminds me of the ways in which everyone of us south carolinian is can make a difference if we so choose. we don't have to wait for a

government program we can go out and do it as she has done so would you as well join me in welcoming her here to this chamber, maxine if he would stand and be recognized as well. [applause] and finally, if i might, i would single out the first lady not as i did last year in mid recognizing what she had done in saving the taxpayers' money at the swearing house and the mansion but in her will truly phenomenal grayson that she showed the world and the state and the storm i brought to our family and the state at large and here in her absence would you give her a round of applause as well. [applause]

now, never losing the perspective of the taxpayer but me underscore some of those savings geneina created the wearing house and the mansion and lace house are a reminder to every one of us of how we can follow the lead of of working south carolinian is in finding creative ways of doing more with less. doing more with less is what families across the state are doing every day. it is something that is a part of their lives and i would ask each one of us in the government to look for ways to honor those daily decisions being made by the people who pay for government. so with all of that being said the state of our state is we have both enormous challenges and opportunities before us. our economic challenges are in

some ways historical in nature but with every great challenge in life comes an opportunity and the opportunity in this moment is that some changes are possible in these tough economic times they wouldn't be possible in good times. think about it, few companies, to businesses, few nations, states, people change until they have to. we have an environment for change that we have not seen in the seven years i've been here with you. some things will change by virtue of the world economy whether we like them or not but the question in much of this is whether or not we are going to make the change or change is simply going to happen to us and it is my contention for the sake of the future generations we ought to be as deliberate as possible and making changes we believe will create to the people of south carolina. this also brings me to the situation i created with the events of this summer and let me address that one last time. after this speech to those of

you i have grown weary i apologize and rest easy i won't do it again but given what happened and this is my first state of the state since then i am compelled to say i'm sorry one more time for the situation i created and for the way that i put every one of you in this room in a bad spot. i disappointed you, i disappointed my family, i disappointed many across the state and across this nation. i could go down a seemingly unending list of disappointments but do you know what it means? it means i am weak and at times all too human. it means i can only be saved by god's grace and i get that now in ways that i never have. the grace of the people of this state has been none other than overwhelming, and to me it has indeed been a reflection of god's greece. people would come up to me and say you really messed up but sooner or later in life we all do.

and the question is how do you get back up. they would say you messed up but it doesn't take away from some of the good things this administration has done the last seven years. you get back up and finished strong and with god's help that is precisely what i intend to do. and so it is my hope and my prayer we can work to get there this year to make a positive difference in people's lives. the opportunity in all of this is i get it in ways i never have this larger notion of the fact i'm not in charge and these lots get larger articles of faith that some point are with a private conversation. i was raised to stride and push and in the world of politics i thought to a great degree that was what determined success, how hard i worked and how hard i pushed. yet i don't think that anymore. that is not licensed not to shore up and do our part but it is recognition of both higher power and the fact that in

politics what will determine success is more than anything on determined by what to do or what i do but what people do. if their voices and loud on an issue pushing at times as i have at times only guarantees newton's cergol we that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and we have all seen plenty of that in the last couple of years. so what i pledge to do is work more earnestly to work with people of the state for the changes i asked for last year. i ask the people of south carolina make a loud but respectful noise for change. and i need to be a bitter messenger because if the people push for these changes and are not tone deaf and hearing the will happen and if they don't, they won't. as the people need to do their part, we need to do hours not only in my conversations with the public but in my work with

you i need to be a humble messenger and take joy in the fact our maker can use in perfect people and all walks of life. this very imperfection underscores the grace of others and grace of god and though at times we may try to cover or forget, the imperfections of any of us underscore the degree to which we really are of the people and by the people and it is my hope and prayer this year that we will be for the people in the results that we produce. folks i talk to tell me they could care less about our ability to play double-fault or problems in each other's lives. what they really care about are fixing problems that impact their lives. so it is within that spirit i hope we can come together. it doesn't mean we won't have our differences. we always will get in that we come from different political parties and different political ideologies and parts of the state but we can bridge these

differences by committing to work alongside each other to make meaningful changes in this legislative session. and toward that end we decided to narrow the focus to that which we believed was specific and measurable and achievable in this legislative term. i still have strong opinions on many to do something about unfunded liabilities of the state level and the need for school choice and to cappoli your education costs and more but in this final year we want to suggest the just a few things and hope that this greater focus by me and you and by the people margaret the ensures their passage. accordingly could we make this the year we had just a couple of tools to the tool kit of economic development and jobs? we put in place spending limits so we avoid otherwise inevitable harm to those who both pay for government and those who are served by it? and finally, we make three changes to the structure of our government that i believe will pay tremendous dividends over

time in both efficiency and effectiveness of the south carolina government people alone? boeing's announcement this call was indeed a great news for the 3800 permanent jobs, to those of construction jobs, supply jobs that will come with that it is a single largest economic development in south carolina history and it's actually been named the economic deal of the year in the country. it is again as bobby referenced an example of the way we can work together and produce extraordinary results wn@ @ @ r)

reform the employment security commission. this change is the tool we could add to the toolkit of job growth and economic development in south carolina this year. the in planas secure a commission is yet another separate island of government in south carolina in some ways seems accountable to no one has the trust fund was from a 500 million-dollar balance down to the negative 800 million-dollar balance. if nothing is done here taxes are going to go up on every large and mid-size or small business in south carolina, and i don't believe a tax increase would be good for job creation in the state of south carolina. i am joined in that belief by greg and mickey and others and i think each of these three men for leading the charge on the reform this year in part because

of their efforts the to the senate will be taking up the reform tomorrow and i think leadership in the senate for taking the step come tomorrow. support arnall laid out for the taxpayer and harmful to the business conditions of the state the also in this case heard those searching for a job. bye linking in planas security commission to the efforts of the department of commerce the tse would move into many ways simply processing claims for those unemployed to more actively courted with four of commerce and others to connect those seeking a job with job opportunities in the state. we continue to believe there are other things we can do to improve the economy like raising the lowest in the nation's tax and swapping it with an equal dollar cuts to the corporate income tax. the effect of the change we proposed here is that south carolina ranking on the staid business tax index would move

from 20 destination one to six in the united states of america and i believe a change like that would produce jobs and it is for that reason i applaud what the house did just this week with regard to a package on that very front. i would say regardless though the different merits of the proposal or others in taking just one legislative change the would maximize economic prospects for this year it is esc reform so i ask you all for its passage. and for those of you out there listening, i would ask you again make loud but respectful voice for change on this larger notion of the esc reform. concurrent with the legislative efforts i am committed to working with each one of you the spearheading efforts and department of commerce to maximize every possibility in recruiting jobs and investment to the state. the success that can and boeing's landing in charleston is a reminder how south carolina can win in these economic

development contests. in for a running quarterback in that effort and frankly so many others like it i would ask joe tayler our secretary commerce stand and be recognized. shaking your head right now but you have to be stand to be recognized if he would, joe. [applause] [applause] now, speaking of the landing in charleston tonight we are also joined by marco who is the president and general manager of nihilism planned delivery for boeing and i would ask everybody in the chamber rise to give him a warm south carolina welcome for the difference bowling will make in people's lives as they produce a world-class product called the dream liner. would you stand and be

recognized marco. [applause] [applause] and a fine on light, could i put one more person on the spot, i guess proper protocol would be since you're standing beside me to recognize you for all that did it legislatively in this effort and concurrent with that, hugh, i see you in the corner where you stand and be recognized for all you did in making this happen? [applause] o cadel was fun but getting back to my legislative list i would say secondly can we make this thing here we get off the

spending and budget roller-coaster? to do so we ask this body enact spending limits. in fairness measures aimed in that direction to pass the house a couple of times and once looked awfully close in the senate side. i know plan is committed to the constitutional change as the most lasting way of making concrete the notion of spending limits and i applaud those efforts and what we are simply asking for is your passage of a deal the would limit government growth to population plus inflation and allocate anything beyond this to first pay down the state's huge unfunded liabilities which mind you now or $20 billion, and when this is done to either sit the money aside for a rainy day or return to the taxpayer. the importance of addressing spending issues and unfunded liabilities of law and can be underscore enough. it is the reason i got into politics and realize my convictions on this front at

times get old but history has consistently shown how governments spend their way into oblivion and to into real pain for the very people they supposedly represent. as a starting point i would simply ask you look what we proposed in the budget in addressing unfunded liabilities because i think it is a starting point. on spending limits if your political persuasion as from the right, then they make sense for the way they protect the taxpayer in good times, they help money from going into wants and wishes rather than poorer needs when $1.5 billion of new money comes into the state as it did just a couple years ago. if your political persuasion is from the left, spending limits makes sense for the way they help those, as avoid cutting past mosul and writing the bone when the times are not so good. financial restraint i believe is in many ways impossible without them because as i said repeatedly that the rotary club talks across the state this

fall, each as if we have been having parallel universe conversations here over the last seven years much like what was described from men are from mars and women are from venus on the one hand i was pointing out the spending is absolutely no way on sustainable. i pointed out in each of the previous state of the states and probably one other thousand 61,000 others as well. i didn't have a crystal ball on economic trends i simply heard from a lot of south carolina and on common sense principles they believed the law to apply to government. the trees don't grow to the sky and winter follows summer and the business and economic cycles represent thinking that's been around for a very long time. unfortunately as a nation and by extension as a state to they have forgotten that simple notion for a long time and the unsustainable march we are on in terms of building up the debt has come to an end. so we will face a tremendous

deleveraging both as a state and a nation and i said then and still believe that there is no way to avoid the simple reality. in last year's state of the state i said anybody who said this economic slowdown would be short-lived was missing what i was hearing across the state, and that is people believe things were tough and in some cases they get worse before they get better. i think that if you look at how high forest of dead and spending has grown the last 20 years you would say it is something we have to do something about. now, unfortunately i've been proven right on this notion of the money that we are spending not being sustainable. but in fairness to everyone of u.s. legislators, that was not the decision most immediately before you at the budget time. i say this because the reality of any dollar that comes into the political system is not whether it will be spent but

where it will be spent and whether the spending of the dollar was sustainable are not at that point it becomes an intellectual exercise and budget time when the question before each one of you is do i fight for my district and some of that money coming to the people i represent where do i simply let others spend it? i don't begrudge any of you for doing that which the elected to do in terms of trying to watch out for the people of your district so if we do nothing we are going to be left with the impasse we have found ourselves for seven years. this means future governors if they choose to try to hold the line on spending will durham simply large amounts of political capital and bridges in the process with less than commensurate results or they may punt on the issue of some with consequential results to the taxpayer. doing nothing will read every one of you in the less than ideal position of voting for spending you know is unsustainable as the only way of getting some of that money back

to your district and the people that you represent. doing nothing but perpetuate the peaks of the valleys approach to government spending that we've seen for far too long in this state. during nothing blocks in the spending track that will almost guarantee future tax increases. people are hurting in our state and rightly expect action to be taken but what we do in addressing the jobs and spending issue is very important for the way unsustainable spending can bring even greater harm to the jobs and economy prospects of the state. spending money that we don't have will never be the key to the economic prosperity. this is true of bailouts of washington just as it is true of our own approach to spending. as we have a second opportunity in these trying economic times and that is to pass spending limits. i donner when it will ever happen if it doesn't happen in this budget year and so i join with thousands of others across the state in simply asking that you pass meaningful and real

spending limits this year. and if you are not listening, i would ask that you make again respectful but loud noise for change in this notion of spending limits. while on the topic of spending by would say that there is one other thing we need to do and that is make our voices heard in washington. everyone knows my opinion on the fallacy of stimulus money and my belief that lasting jobs and economic growth can never come from a government bailout. i will restate my beliefs on how damaging those efforts are to the future generations, the american dollar and long term viability of both south carolina and american economies. but there is a new threat to the dollar, to financial stability and to this country is debt is spiralling out of control in washington, d.c.. so-called health care reform will bring immediate damages both to the state and this nation as for instance in south carolina alone it would expand medicaid rolls by over 500,000

people. let me say that again over 500,000 people. it would wind up costing taxpayers in this state more than $1 billion the next ten years and would mean medicaid would grow to be almost 40% of the budget and almost one-third of the population of south carolina would be on medicaid itself. all this means unless people across the state make their voice heard, significant cuts to other parts of government or substantial role as taxes are coming our way. if he were to take just one pearl of wisdom from this talk, and you are out there listening it is all i ask you make your voice heard was in washington or south carolina in improving the environment for jobs growth in the economy. finally in this last year of office, i backed away from some of our more ambitious proposals if you will on government structure and by extension the

way things are done in colombia. and instead we are asking for just three changes that we believe once again are specific and measurable and achievable in this term in moving us toward a more well-balanced thereby more efficient and effective state of government. it's important to remember south carolina government costs about 140% of the national average. our government structure leads in mighty ways to this cost and is something that hurts the businesses and job prospects on believe as well as the taxpayer. three things we believe would move us in a different direction or a department administration, having the governor, lieutenant governor run together on a ticket and allow the people of south carolina to decide whether a whole host of constitutional officers should be elected or appointed. last to the department of administration bill passed the house unanimously before stalling the senate. its premise is we don't need to be the only state in the country that doesn't allow its governor

to administer the law we have administered by the other 49 governors in the united states of america. he would not be given this power to me as i'm gone in 11 months. but for the sake of good government, please give this power to whoever follows me. whether they are republican or democrat, whether male or female give them the tools by which the succeed or fail at the task at hand and then hold them accountable. number two, will you put