tv Today in Washington CSPAN August 10, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EDT
they could be barred from the country. we have an existing system by graphically based. we have an exception report every six months from our system which says that these people should have left the country. we do an analysis based on intelligence and other priorities. we send over about 300 records per week to immigration and customs enforcement. they re-prioritize that list and knock on doors. they did this about 800 times last year. we have made by a graphics system. we have an exit system that works pretty well what you are referring to is what the congress has said in many different iterations which is to add a biometric to that. you can add that to the entrance and exit point. you all have traveled and you have gone through passport
control upon departure. you don't have departure control here in the united states. as a country, we have not decided to have any kind of passport control or departure control nor has canada. that is a fundamental difference we have with the rest of the world. their only three or four countries that have no departure control. how do we institute that? the airlines take care of the by a graphics side but it is done behind the scenes. if a foreign national leaves the country, you do not see any government presence other than tsa in checking you out. our first priority is to make sure that the people flying out of the country understand they will have to go through a separate process. we also have to ask the same question -- is the cost of implementing exit control system where you get that much more
certainty about someone leaving, is that were dead? prior to the economy where it is today, you might have answered yes. in a downturn economy, the administration rightly is looking at that as the best expenditure of that extra dollar we have or do we need to put it on something else. biometrics will work. we did product tests for a few years. we know for certain a person left the country and we can arrest that person. we can't know with certainty that a certain country's population is leaving the country on a regular basis and therefore not abusing the system and opening those countries up to things like beebe said waiver program. -- like the of the sat waiver program. -- like the visa waiver program. what gets lost is because we
have no over-presence at the airport primarily, driving is different, 40 miles per hour that canada -- to canada, starting with the airports, by not having a presence there, does that send the signal to people that once you get here and you don't check me when i go out, i will stick around. that can add to the issue of -- when i first started in this business, we had 700 million people in this country illegally. that has changed. people that come with a visa and they said they don't have to leave. that s to one of the guiding principles which is insuring integrity in the immigration system. one might argue that by not
having the physical presence at the airports says to the foreign national that we don't care. that is not the case. we do. you go back to the cost of implementing that physical presence to insure integrity in the immigration system. >> what type of dollar figures are we talking about? >> we put a proposed rule out couple of summers ago that the air line should collect a biometry data. they did not like that idea . they would have to spend too much money to implement a system like that. some of us were sceptical whether that was the best idea. you make decisions in the government, decisions are made in retrospect.
engaging and enraging the airline community who went to capitol hill and said that is not their job basically won out. congress did a couple of more pilots to use different ideas. we have decided that was not the best solution so we are backing away from that. anywhere from $3 billion to $12 billion is what we put out as a proposed rule. we have now put out a much more affordable program that will be much less than that. the successes we have had is where we do this incrementally. we started with the airports in the first year and we went to the 50 busiest land ports and went to the next 15 busiest of
land ports of entry. biometric exit will be easy in the airport in varmint and more challenging at the land for the environment but we need to move out in incremental fashion and affordably. that is not something that one takes lightly. the secretary has to weigh all the decisions and make a decision based on priorities within the department. we are just not there yet. we are close, i think. congress will address this for the type expansion of the visa waiver program any more countries to having a biometric exit. we have to weigh all the different decisions and i think we are close to a decision but we are not there yet. >> this cuts out a step and security?
people are talking about expanding but does it need to be tightened? people are looking for behavioral profile it. ing. >> 36 countries have the biometrics on why people are staying in a country. that has been a multi-billion dollar improvement to the country here in the time it has been in place. one thing we way is security, but not on the altar of economic security. we have to have a viable travel and tourism and travel and trade program within the u.s. to make sure we have good flowing. part of the reason why secretary ridge changed this was subtle.
we signal that that we want people to come to the u.s. but we want them to leave on time are we have to maintain the economic viability of economic terrorism. >> how much of a concern is there? >> we have these countries where we have an element of trust. congress passed this in the late 1980's to say that we had this issue of the state department having increased responsibility to interview everybody. post-9/11 that was still the issue with anybody with a visa. everybody uses the program uses a fingerprint process. it happened at the fork -- it
happens at the port of entry and not at the embassy in paris. they still go through this interview at the port of entry so it is a robust immigration inspection process. we now have countries that have to turn over to the guide states additional information they have on criminals. we would add that fingerprint information to our program as a proper id and use it for investigative purposes or real time depending on the actual country's ability to send this information. we have added electronic security travel authorization. australia has this. the person in the visa waiver program would send information over the inch -- over the
internet and we could grant an couldvisa. we have added extra security processes and added more responsibilities to the country. we send teams every two years into those countries to assess their law enforcement, their security protocols, how the issue there visas, so they visa waiver program as viability and security to it. >> do you think that dhs should have a bigger role in the key visa-granting process? should that be more robust? >> i think what we have now is working well. the state department is the entity for granting visas.
we have dhs people in several countries looking over their shoulder. they look at different databases per the state department uses our database. when they -- before they issue a visa, they check with the fbi that also against our system as well. they look at the watch list, the 5 million people watch list but they look at the 15-number and growing list of people shopping for visas at in another country. people try to get visas in multiple countries. the state department did a good job of ended -- interviewing different people and using information. valuet see how much
expanding the program would be. >> you touch and as briefly, but how does immigration or even more specifically, immigration politics complicate your national security mission at the southwest border in a particular. >> it complicates it a great deal because it is interlinked. i would like to think that everyone would agree that immigration policy is linked to the demand for border enforcement. if people can come into the country when we would like them to come into the country and they would, the demand to come in illegally goes down. these two things are interlinked. one thing that is frustrating for us is we are not so foolish as to think that by looking just at that border and putting technology and personnel and tactical infrastructure there we can stop every single person that wants to come across that
border illegally. we think we can make it difficult. we think we can decrease the numbers. how much is it worth to do that? if you could link that would better immigration policy, you can get a better balance. in terms of enforcing the border we will do what we are asked to do the best we can with the tools we have. it the policy decision continues to increase border patrol activity we will do that. it makes more difficult when there are these policy debates on immigration. >> i should probably open up to questions in the audience. the gentleman in the blue. >> for director burkowski - our
neighbors might imply why it is difficult to reduce the number of weapons flowing across our southwest border to mexico? >> i am not sure that i would say it is so difficult. it is something that in the past -- much like bob is talking -- we were not focused on what was leaving, we were focused on what was coming in. over the last year, we have put more resources into looking at what is going out. we have started to interdict those weapons going south. there is safe bi-directionality that has become increasingly important and we believe the enforcement posture has increased as a result. >> we will get a microphone runner over. >> thank you. what happened that let the
detroit bomber get through the system? gues>> i think the director spoo this. he got through because there was a breakdown in processes that were stood up. he got her based on the policy decisions that were made before about how someone gets raised to the watch list. one thing we try to do is to make sure we have all the information on an individual that we possibly can and give that information to the decision maker for that person to make the decision. it is an imperfect science. is not always there. -- it is not always there. we have so much data out there it is sometimes difficult double to make sense of that data. i cannot sit here as the
director of u.s. visits and give you a definitive answers as to why this person was able to get on a point given the information we had on him, but what i can say -- and it goes back to the question before -- are we better off now than we were before 9/11 and we are. are we as part as we can be? no. 12/25 is an indication of that. it is important to move in the direction we are moving and do so in a fashion that addresses civil liberties but let's not go back to where we were before. i hope nothing like that ever happens again. we will improve the system so the information we have will be shared and given to decision makers so they can make the best decision. >> blue blazer? >> dhs and the state department
some of that experience is that certain thing should be in place efore you embark tonigh on an acquisition program. he should be able to define what the cost is and track against that. you should have clear decision points with required information to support those decisions. you should have an analysis of alternatives was is the cost benefit analysis. the secretary has said that this is something that under the way dod operates, this would have been done by 2005. the other part -- hiring qualified program managers is one. what is it the government program manager adds to a program? what is the value added by the government participation in
this? you got into a lot of it. it is insisting on the requirements and demanding performance. and then establishing the competencies' in those areas. at the fbi, there was a complete reorganization to set up entities that were designed to inate higher competencies' government program management that could be more broadly used outside fbi once they are there. does a structural policy thing and it is but a very -- and it is the meat and potatoes of developing competencies'. >> can you and the microphone to the gentleman next to him? >> i was struck, i think, by
your description of the entry aside from originally being in emigration program to be much more security-focused. on the exit the site, the of original proposed roll characterize the exit program as more of an immigration program as opposed to a security program. can you tell us what the current department thinking is on the exit side about whether that program should serve a security function or immigration function? if it is a security function, what will that look like? >> they should serve both purposes. the 20 million people living here illegally is an issue for us to grapple with and it becomes a political issue in every campaign. we need to address that and take care of what has caused that.
the exit will not sure that regioncure that. cure that. will notcuer i think we have to get a handle on our immigration problem. we are now back in a similar situation with the numbers. we will go through comprehensive immigration reform sooner or later. the security aspect is equally important. i cannot sit here and say we will have someone exited the country -- exiting the country who is a concern to law enforcement and intelligence and not alert those individuals. we identified about 400 or 500
individuals who had some law- enforcement reason for stopping them. there were seven instances for a person to be taken out. that is an important element. we will spend the money on exit and we have to be able to respond that a person is leaving the country who is a law enforcement interest or a terrorist threat and we have to be able to take appropriate action. so, it serves both purposes. >> i am from the center from advanced defense studies. researchers at dhs at the university of arizona are
working at creating avatars with applications to border security. i was wondering what you foresee as being the role of artificial agents in border security and given the complications with the net system, what do you foresee as being complications? >> is this addressed to me? who did you say you were with? there is a homeland security institute center there, right? the gentleman who runs it came to seem a couple of weeks ago. i am going after visit shortly to get into those questions. we have not looked at things like avatar. s. we look at technology as a plan that provides us surveillance information and situational awareness. we are aware that technology has
more capability than just that. our first a increment is situational awareness. we have not got much beyond that because we want to crack that one. we are aware that technology has other applications. we work closely with the department of homeland security science department. we have had problems getting a path between science and technology advancement and acquisition people. i will be going out to arizona to look at that stuff shortly. >> right now, we are doing fingerprints. that will be the basis for biometrics because that gets the criminality aspect. we are looking at iris scant and facial recognition and we're looking atdna.
the use of biometrics is the logical next step in the pollution of identity. -- in the evolution of identity. over time, we have added more security features because the criminals want to be other people and they would steal identities. we make sure the process would be more difficult for the criminals to cop a passport to get past the system. bio metrics is the zenith of that process. you cannot take my fingerprints and put them on your fingerprints and be me. you can laser of your finger prints. as a chinese woman did, you can have one fingerprint replace from another figure prince, one
finger from another figure end a criminalist died -- will still try to get ahead of the system anyway they can. we would like to endvein-pattern recognition -- we would like to pattern recognition we would like to take pieces of the body and link it to a computer and make decisions based on that. we have to be able to do that but make sure we are staying one step ahead of those people that would steal identities or change their identity. >> one more? yes, sir? >> ina said the sen. i was going to ask -- i am a citizen. i want to ask you about people
here illegally. the arizona law which is under scrutiny the allowing legitimate federal authorities or state authorities to question an individual as to whether they are here legally, is that a good policy for this country's security and is it a policy that should be applied across the country? >> there are two ways we can affect that. we have a program that is 287-g. that allows local police officer to get train dhs-ice agents had to handle immigration cases. the law enforcement entity will apply for 287-g, go through training, and get information ice. the other issue is secure communities. do we want criminal aliens in
the country roaming around illegally? i think everyone's no with said. how do you best -- i think everyone here we sayno. -- i think everyone here would say no. eventually, we can identify them for biometrics. that is a non-judgmental way of arresting people and letting their own fingerprints' identify themselves as a criminal alien who does not deserve to be in the united states and maybe later deported. that is a process that will take time to weed out the criminal aliens we have but i believe that it is much more judicious than having someone spotted and pullovers for some reason -- and pulled over for some reason. identifying and weeding out the
criminal aliens will be able to be done in an increasing number of cities as we roll this out. >> with that, i think we will free you gentlemen. thank you very much. [applause] >> lunch is right outside if you would go out and get it and bring it back in and we will start as soon as possible the next session with the ambassador. >> in a couple of moments, a debate between the republican candidates for governor in georgia. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 with segments on electric cars. the agriculture department conference on civil rights and diversity will include remarks by the assistant secretary for
civil rights and the georgia commissioner of labor. that is on c-span 2 at 8:00 eastern. at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3, a briefing on the 2010 census. the field work will be discussed and the data processing that is still ahead. the candidates in today's georgia republican primary runoff for governor met sunday in a vital debate for the winner of the race -- in the final debate for the winner of the race will face the democratic incumbent. this is half an hour. >> the 2010 atlanta press club debate brought to you live. tonight, the republican run off for come water. -- for governor. >> good evening, i am by a host of"all things considered."
we welcome our television viewers, our live studio audience, and our listeners on radio to the 2010 primary election run off debate originating from the studios of georgia public broadcasting. the debate tonight is organized by the atlanta press club. this is a debate among vote republican candidate in the primary election runoff for governor and let me those two candidates. they are nathan deale, a former congressman, in the first round, each candidate will enter a question from one of our three panelists. in the second round, the candidates will ask questions of a. one another each candidate will have time for rebuttal in this round. in the third round, the panelists will continue questioning the candidates. finally, each candidate will have 30 seconds to make a closing statement.
before we get started, let's meet our three distinguished analyst. panelists. firsteri,n haynes, next, charles richardson, and our final panelist is a tragets -- is a tr biggeragets. let's get started with the debate. the first round as it can that being asked a question by one of our panelists. the candidates will have 60 seconds to answer each question and i will determine whether a rebuttal is necessary. karen handel gets the first question. >> good evening. welcome to both of you. over the weekend, the governor pledged to bring community to
the republican party. are either of you willing to make the same pledge tonight? would both of you pledged to support the winner should either of you lose? >> i will give you 60 seconds that absolutely, in the republican party, we talk about competition and we believe that competition is good. >> that goes for campaigns as well. i think that makes us stronger candidates when we come through this. what i will do is do what is best for the state and what's best for at. our party. we have to make sure roy barnes not getting his hands back on the state will be in the interest of all then georgias. >> i made dedicated republican as well. i don't think i have run a campaign in which i have been divisive. i don't think i have been the one that has caused this party to have divisions. and of -- i don't think i have attacked our fellow candidates.
it will take some time for us to be able to heal some of the wounds that have been inflicted i look forward to the opportunity to be a part of what we will be doing going forward. i believe that i will be the and i believe i can beat roy barnes in november. >> why would anyone want to be governor of this state? we have a $613 million shortfall. what would you do specifically to get georgia back on track? >> why anybody would want to be governor, i believe that you have to believe that public service is an honorable undertaking and i believed that all my adult life. i have served at every level in government to make things better for the people for our state and nation. that is why i want to be governor because i believe tough times require people who have
the experience to make tough decisions for it. i am the only candidate who has put forward a proposal for tax reform that i believe is the way to make our economy grow. it would bring this to the top 1/3 of the country in the tax foundation in terms of a favorable business climate. i think we need to grow ourselves out of this downturn economy. >> that concludes round one and now the candidates get to ask questions of each other. you have 30 seconds for the question, 60 seconds to respond, and then 30 seconds -- the questionnaire will have 30 seconds for rebuttal. nathan deale and ask the first .uestions thatn georgias you have indicated that you
do not favor going to a 0-based budget approach. i would ask you why not and what would be your answer to getting this budget back in balance? >> you know that is not true. you have been on the campaign trail with me. what i have said consistently is that first and foremost i do not need legislation to do zero- based budgeting. i will -- i was already doing it. i will obviously sign any bill like that but i don't need it because i come from the private sector and i have not spent my career in politics in washington. i know the way to balance the budget is to start with prioritizing programs every single year. just because you got a certain amount of money last year does not mean that you get a certain amount of money this year. it should be based on the result that every agency is expected to deliver. we need to have serious budget constraints put in place. i am the only candidate who has
proposed permanently downsizing our budget and i'm committed as your governor to do that. >> i do know better. i know that is not what you said earlier this discussion on the campaign trail use said that you did not need any thing to require you to do it but families don't need anything to require them to do it either but that is what they have to do. i think that is the responsible thing. we need to look beyond where we are in terms of just saying to bureaucrats to decide what the priorities are. we need to weigh in with public input and that is what i would do as governor. >> thank you. karen handel, you can now ask a question. >> you have commented several times that they job of governor is being the chief executive officer of the state. share with us sums of examples of your executive management experience where you have managed a budget date today and
manage a team of employees and implemented programs where you were being held accountable for the results. >> on like you, i have been a small business person. i started a small business. i had to make payrolls and make sure my employees get compensated and have the cover is they need. i have not worked for a fortune 500 company like you have. i have also managed a business and that is the important foundation. as a member of congress, i had to manage a congressional office. i never average returning $100,000 every year over the money that has been appropriate -- i have averaged returning $100,000 every year. i think i have the experience. i think i am the only one, quite frankly, who has that and i have done it for many years. i practiced my profession for over 20 years in a small community in north georgia and that is the best way that people
can understand how budgets work is to actually have to live up to one. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> this is one of the key distinctions between myself and my opponent. i bring the executive management response to this state. i was responsible for nearly a $1 billion budget. i had to balance that. i have run a small business at the chamber of commerce where i was responsible for leading that organization and i did so bringing it from the brink of bankruptcy to solvency. it is this type of problem solving b. >> as you know, we talked about the importance of good transportation solutions. i have been the one that has said that on highway 400 that
we've should remove atoll because we have collected the money to pay for and we promise the people that use -- the people using that road that they would not have to pay a toll once the project is paid for it would do t supportolling on existing roads to bring in more revenue? >> absolutely not. it would be for new capacity. i would support bringing tolls down. i would also submit that as someone who travels georgia 400 every day that if you look at the models that have been out there, removing the tolls would increase congestion on georgia 400 by 18%. we should engage in a dialogue as to whether we should increase -- whether we want to upgrade the road where it comes into the connector and make sure we can
have expanded capacity. if we are not going to invest dollars in that area, by all means, tol bring thels down tolls down.ing babytol the >> i believe that these good people who have paid this toll for all these years should not be asked to continue to pay it just for other projects even if it is a project within the general corridor. i don't think that is the best way to solve this solution to the problem of transportation gridlock. we need to show good faith to the people who have trusted us because they might not trust us again. >> the last question in this round is your second question for d nathaneala. >> i asked you yesterday it was appropriate for elected
officials to do business with the state. you said it was. in the private sector that would be deemed a conflict of interest. can you expand on your explanation of why you think it is ok for elected officials to do business with the state? >> i understand you have never had an elected office as a full- time job. the general assembly members are people who are part-time legislators. that is what republicans stand for is people who will serve their governments and their communities and also be in the private sector earning a living on their own. i don't think we should punish those who are willing to offer themselves for public service and a part-time capacity at a very minimal in come. if you prohibit that, i suppose we should have prohibited the secretary of state's office from buying computers from hewlett- packard. those are not the kind of
restrictions that people want. they want transparency. they want to know that things are being done and reported appropriately. that is what our law requires. i have confidence in the general assembly as they sacrifice their time in order to serve the good people of this state. >> i held a part-time position and i never did business with the counter. -- with the county. conflict of interest is a serious issue in our state. it is a park ridge to expect that those doing the business of the people are not benefiting -- is appropriate to expect that those doing business of the people are not benefiting on necessarily. i will make decisions on the people's behalf. >> that concludes our second
round of questioning. for those joining our program in progress, this is the debate among the candidates for the georgia republican gubernatorial nomination in the primary runoff coming up this tuesday. for our third round, we return to our panel of journalists who will ask questions of the candidates. you can indicate which candidate or both that you wish to ask a question. candidates will have 60 seconds to respond. we begin this round with a question. >> a community of lawmakers left next week to save the hope scholarship which is expected to run out of money. enrollment is going up but college universities. what ideas do you have to save the program? >> we want to make sure that we are being the date said-driven
as we look at the hope scholarship. hope needs to remain achievement-based paren. we have to deal with this issue in the right way to preserve it for the long haul. we have to model this out across five years to make sure we are sustaining it in the long term. yesterday in the debate, my opponent made a subject out of the fact that i don't have a college degree. that is precisely because i don't have the college degree that i will be the strongest champion of hope that we have seen in a long time. i know how important this program is. i want to make sure that every young person who wants to go to college will have that opportunity to do so. >> we will give you 30 seconds to rebut. >> she has a poor memory.
it was not me that brought it up. it was the first question asked. i was simply asked to comment on it as well i also believe it is important to keep the hope scholarships excess-based to encourage people to achieve and high school. it has been a great program to keep students who might otherwise migrate because of excellent grades to other states. i would work cooperatively to make sure it continues. >> our next question, fromerin haines. >> can you talk about your plan for securing the georgia borders and the idea to change the 14th amendment? >> i have been the leader on that issue of first right citizenship. i think eventually the country will adopt a desperate only
about 33 countries in though world granta birthright citizenship. i don't think the 14th amendment was intended to grant citizenship to people. two of the four counties in georgia that have the opportunity to participate in enforcing immigration laws are in my old congressional district. i was instrumental in having passed that. i believe federal government should spend the money to help communities, states, and counties to make their officers trained to have access to the immigration database. this is what i would pursue as governor. because of the extreme cost associated with illegal immigration, i think the state legislature should adopt something similar to the arizona statute and we can learn from the objections that have been raised as to whether we can tailor this more appropriately. >> we have had some developments
in arizona and last few days, would it be alright if we ask the same question of ha karenndle? >> this is costing our state anywhere from $1.5 billion to $2 billion every year. the white house is fundamentally abdicated their responsibility on this issue. the states have no choice but to stand up and take the situation into their on hands. yes, we should move forward with an arizona-type of legislation i have looked into this to make sure that if our legislation comes through that we make it even stronger than what arizona has spread i think it is more than just passing legislation. i would have local law enforcement officials working through the enforcement side so we can make sure they have the
tools and the resources they need to actually enforce block. it does not do much of a just pass legislation and we don't make sure they can be our partners. >> charles richardson, it is your turn to ask a question. >> i want to go back to the ethics you're talking about. you said these are part-time legislature but the ethics complaint was brought against you as a full-time congressman. as explained that. -- explain that. >> there is no comparison. i had no state contract and received no state money, it was a cooperative effort and i had no territorial assignment at all. it was a program that the state of georgia put in place requesting people like my business to participate in to ensure the safety of the driving public in georgia. unfortunately, we are now having over 15,000 cars every
year put back on our roads with no safety inspection. i think that is wrong. there is no comparison here it as a member of the state senate, i complied fully with the state disclosure laws of transparency. >> next question. >> this is for both candidates. another big issue in the state is water and maybe the lack of it in a couple of years. the next governor will have to deal with the deadline of 2012. if there is no resolution by then, what is your emergency plan? as governor, i will work aggressively to make sure that we have good solid progress in dealing with this issue. in the meantime, we have work to do.
we have to go to the legislature for the conservation legislation. it will send a positive message to the courts but also our negotiating partners to make sure we are moving expeditiously on a network of reservoirs. i think the smaller ones can be more readily integrated into communities and more easily given permits and brought on line. we have to negotiate hard in the negotiations and i will be their personal. it is imperative to be at the table personally on these issues and not simply send letters back and forth. one of the first actions as governor that i will begin working on is the worst-case scenario contend it's a plan -- contingency plan. >> i think no one has any greater experience that i have having represented the greater like land region.
i would aggressively pursue negotiations with the other governors. in the event and that negotiation is not successful, we have to lay the predicate for going back to the court. we have to do so with clean hands. the first question asked that the judge will ask is what have we done. we need to fix that leaking water pipes and improve our water treatment facilities. when the river -- when the water is returned, the judge would give us credit for the spread he did not do this in the original opinion. we need local reservoir is controlled by counties and local communities. >> next question. >> you were recently asked by
radio station about an area where the state is paying too much money and you said administrative services. in your three years as secretary of state, your office increased by 42%. how can you reconcile what you say verses what you have done? >> that increase is specifically related to the creation of the office of inspector general. those of us dealing with the state budget now that you cannot create a new division. we took our inspectors from the various divisions within the secretary of state's office and consolidated them into the office of inspector general. there was no new funding for any of that. it was a consolidation of individuals from other areas of the agency to make sure we could consolidate our investigative strength and get us a better
coverage around the state especially for election fraud where we were aggressive. having that consolidated agency, we made huge progress being able to deal with the election fraud in this state and made several cases on the felony front. >> our time for questions has expired. now each of the republican candidates in the primary runoff for georgia governor will have 30 seconds to make a closing statements. karen handel -- >> thank you so much. i have had the privilege to go around this state for the past 50 months. it has been extraordinary. i have seen the incredible asset and wonderful opportunities that lie ahead for georgia. what we need most is a governor who will be a strong and that
the leader who will pull those assets to gather. the best georgia days are ahead. we have to reach out and grab it. >> 30 seconds to close them i began to serve my country as a teenager when i embarked on a process of becoming an army officer. i serve my local community as a prosecutor and court judge. i have the honor to serve in congress. the thing we have to ask is do we will nominate? can they make the hard decisions in these difficult times. i think i am qualified. having the endorsement of newt gingrich and mike huckabee is great. i will be a governor who will govern with an open mind, an open door, and a servant's part. i ask for your vote on tuesday. >> that concludes our debate. we would like to remind voters
that the primary runoff election will be held this tuesday, august 10. we thank the candidates. we thank our panel of journalists. we would also like to it -- to thank the atlanta press club for sponsoring this debate. these debates will be archived on the a atlanta press club web sites. -- on the atlanta press club website. we invite you to stay tune for the primary debate with the candidates in the republican runoff for aid attorney general. that is coming up next. >> this is made possible by a donation paria.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." the house is in for a special session after that. a $600 million border security bill is also on the agenda. we will focus on the special house session with our guests. house session with our guests.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on