tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 27, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EDT
committees and of our country. to that end in addition to our hands-on senate experience in boston we host a series of public programs that highlight the role of the senate and the focus on the issues of the day. while i think you'll agree that the senate advice and consent role in confirming nominees to the supreme court certainly qualify as an important issue of the day. we know however that the public does not only understand the senate in portland at vice and consent role. indeed and polling just completed by the kennedy institute we found only 36% of americans understand the role that the senate plays in confirming supreme court nominees.
they took part in a debate hosted by the open debate coalition, this this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> i had and program director for the open debate. welcome to the first open debate for u.s. senate. were in orlando for the last seven days where the 900 questions were submitted by people across florida nation. over 400,000 votes were cast on mine. tonight, all questions for republican congressmen are going
to come from the 30 question that received the most votes from people like you. tonight we have two cutting-edge moderators and benny johnson. and they they average about 35 million unique viewers every month. we also have maria on hand to deliver one of the voter questions. she she is founder of the blog, linda latino .org. we'll even even have a cameo from the hollywood celebrity. tonight, we have fiery debaters who are each leading in numerous polls and their respective primaries because of their political smarts. this'll be a non-precedented matchup, something people will be talking about tomorrow that you do not want to miss. first let me give you background on the open debate coalition. the coalition is comprised of top progressive and conservative political leaders. and top tech leaders from silicon valley. this in clues or close tonight, the progressive
change led by stephanie taylor and adam green. we also have americans for tax reform. the coalition includes a former strategist for judge w bush, the republican national committee, senate, senate republicans admit romney. it also includes moveon.org, democracy for democracy for america, labor unions, union organizations, civil rights advocates and more. we have media voices like arianna huffington, silicon valley leaders who support this debate in quitting wikipedia cofounder, cindy con for electronic frontier foundation and we also have craig from craigslist. needless to say, the members of the open debate coalition do not necessarily agree on every issue , but we do agree on one core principle. that political debates and must must better represent the will of the people. what that means is asking candidates questions voted on by the people instead of silly questions. and it also means liberating debate footage and you do not need cable news at all but instead you can see it
on an open sea that's on any social media platform or individual that wants to broadcast it. at the coalition we hope tonight's debate serve serve as a model for presidential events later this year. and that is to become the norm for political debates all across america for every office up and on the ballot. tonight, we invite you to spread the word on's social media during the debate letting people know they can open watch it at hash -- >> let's begin. i am proud to announce our moderators at janke and benny. >> thank you, we appreciate. we have an absolutely unique debate for you guys tonight. you actually ask the question. our job as moderators will be to ask follow-up questions to make sure you get the answers to the questions you ask.
there were a lot of questions out there. 900 questions submitted, 400,000 votes which is amazing. i want to thank our hosts, open debate coalition, cohost progressive change institute and americans for tax reform and this event and americans for tax reform and this event is going to last about 75 minutes. there will not be any questions about boxers or briefs, iphones or blackberries or any of that. why, because you did not ask them. nobody propose those questions nobody voted on them. instead we have a lot of substance which you'll see throughout the debate. i want to make sure everyone understands will have one minute for the initial answers for the candidate and the 45 seconds seconds for follow-up. beyond that is moderators discussion. with that, benny, take it away. >> for me, by the way it is briefs. so i had the distinguished honor of producing the stars of the show, this to congressmen who are joining us tonight. the first congressmen that i'm introducing is congressman david jolly, he is a native floridian. he is a lawyer by trade and practice and he tells me that at
one time he was that every major league baseball stadium in america. thank you for joining us. the second congressmen that i'm introducing is congressman alan grayson. this gentleman is known for his fantastic cowboy boots and exceptional pace in american flag ties. what she tells me he even got a brand-new tie on amazon for this debate. it does not disappoint, the beautiful american flag tie. >> so let's get started. we did a coin flip before the debate and carson grayson one and he will do his opening statement first you have one minute. >> thank you. my my job as a member of congress and hopefully next year as a senator simple one, to make sure that every floridian, every american can be all that he or she can be. unchained by poverty, by poor
health, by lack of education, or or by discrimination. that is my job. mormor we find that people are struggling to be able to accomplish that. inequality is rising in america, few people have a have a job, have a home, your people have a car or any sort of savings for retirement or health coverage. that has to end. i want to see in america and make it america where everyone can see a dr. with their sick and get the care they need to stay healthy and alive. i want to see in america where compensation for work is actually a fair day's pay for a fair days work. that means health coverage for you and your family, it means a much higher higher minimum wage, it means paid sick leave and pay vacations. above all i want to see a new deal for seniors. seniors deserve a raise, it has been 40 years since there's been any increase in social security benefits. i'm working hard right now the house of representatives to change that.
to make sure that seniors get the rays they deserve if they were denied this year and to get the race they deserve in the future as well as extending medicare to cover your eyes, ears, and teeth. a lot of it may sound like common sense but the system has been created to frustrate, and i have been named the most effective member of congress because all the good things i've gotten done for people time and time and again, i want to do more than the senate. thank you. >> of next, congressman joe. >> thank you to the open debate coalition, think it teach one of you submitted questions. thank you to my colleague alan for agreeing to this format as well, think this is a very good thing. i've been in congress for two years. i have made it a point every day to fight for the people of florida. to put it it all on the line every single day. for veterans who pays the healthcare crisis, introduce legislation to empower them to choose where they receive their healthcare. for seniors for seniors i've introduced legislation to create a new
index for how you calculate cost of living adjustment that reflects the true cost to the elderly. for our young people, i have championed early childhood education, student nutrition, student readiness, for homeowners and business i have championed flood insurance relief and reform. yes i believe the president has overstepped or is wrong on issues from form policy to economic security, i have challenged the president on behalf of the people of florida. at the end of the day the most part reform that we can make is to reform congress. that is why many of you have seen in the last 24 hours my fight to change washington forever by enacting the stop act. to prohibit members of congress from directly soliciting a contribution from you. regardless of what your priority is, balanced budget, border security, immigration reform, early childhood education, the recent advances will not be made
as congress is spending too much time asking you for money and not do your job. it's what i've introduced the stop act and i will fight every day to get it done. >> now let's get started with our question, as promised the first one is from young american and you will see this is unlike a lot of debates, he asked that in new york his name is logan and i got voted almost to the very top and that is why we are presenting first. it's on campaign finance reform. remember everyone of these questions is in the top 30 based on florida votes because it's for the florida senate seats. logan, take it away. >> 90% of americans believe that money needs to get out of politics, so how are you going to work with the president to create a viable campaign system that people can trust? >> congressman charlie, you brought this up, first question so goes to you. >> i appreciate the question. one of the things we can do is get congress back to work, get
them off the phones asking people for money. that's a congressional reform. i'm a republican who can tell you there's too much money in politics. let's talk about transparency and accountability. let's make sure any political message we know who it comes from. we have to balance a constitutional privilege of any individual to participate in the election of jews with reasonable regulations. let's start by passing this top act. let's stop asking the american people for money, that's one way. let's address how do we get to a better campaign-finance system that we have now. i was elected and at the time was the most expensive congressional recent history. most were 2,000,000 dollars in a little over ten weeks in one county. imagine what that 40,000,000 $40 million could have done for the county instead of being spent on tv. we can do better. i will work with alan and any republican or democrat to try to get to a better police >> we will do follow-up after each person gets a chance to
respond. >> win this campaigner created a new paradigm for campaign finance. it is a revolution. i am the only member of congress out of 435 of us that finance most of the 2014 successful campaign with small donors. i'm the only member of congress that did that in 2012 as well. twice in a row, one out of 435. i'm dealing member of congress hundred 35. i'm dealing member of congress running for senate right now was finance campaign through small donors, the only one. we have had over 125,000 people make a contribution. this is the revolution. it is happening right in front of their eyes. there are two ways to raise money you can go to the billionaires and multinational corporations, you go to impacts of special interest, and you can beg for cash in terms of her favors. you know those favors are, their bailouts, they're no good contracts. their due
contracts. there do regulation as they call it. their tax breaks. it is quid pro quo. the people come to my website, senator with guts.com, all 125,000 of them contributed they want thousand of them contributed they want nothing in return for money except the government. that is the way forward. that's you do it. i was in the courtroom when the citizens united decision was determined. i was the only public official in front of mitch mcconnell two seats to my left, you and i discussed this on the air, and i said at the time on msnbc, if we do nothing, you can kiss his country goodbye. i'm doing something. >> okay. so first of all the stop asked what i understand involves representatives not calling the donors anymore. but to someone still call them, to someone on their's on your staff call them and if so, do you still have the same private financing issue it at hamsters that you're not making the call? >> we'll know about the amount
of money in politics, this is about the amount of time it takes to raise the money. it doesn't apply to challengers, the stop act. it only applies to sitting members of the house and senate. it says, you are cheating the taxpayer if you spend 20 or 30 hours a week raising money instead of doing the job you ran to do. hopefully this will give a breathing room to my colleagues on the left and right to fight for what they believe in. get back to work, get off the phone. does libyan place the current finance campaign-finance. we could get the stop act on this year, campaign-finance am afraid with all the complexities is a multiyear effort to actually get it done. i'm willing to work with anybody on campaign-finance reform but i do not want that to distract from something we can accomplish today which is the stop back. >> i want to show your graphic it to your response. this. this is something based on the princeton and northwestern study for two decades they look at it and even before citizens united. >> high on mark. >> no, not yet mark.
what they found out is a public policy is not related to public opinion. that is the flatline. in an ideal democracy you and have you have that diagonal line like using their that if 100% of the american people wanted a hundred% chance of success that would and the flatline is what it is for% of americans. no effect on public policy as all. the yellow line is for the economic elite special interests. they're much closer to the ideal, they have a democracy, but we don't. it is because they have the money. so congress the money. so congress segment, how do you sell this and specifically are you in favor of a 20th amendment for the united states constitution to make sure that you put an end to money and politics? >> we live in an oligarchy. i'll let you do decide. the. the fact is if you're a member of congress, on most committees
you have someone it comes to your office with a bundle of checks before a vote from lobbyist who are voting in favor of that bill, you vote for the bill and you get another bundle of checks afterward. it's that bad. i'm not just talking about two or three, or for five members, i'm talking about 434 of them. it is pervasive. that is how it is done. frankly, nobody nobody can even conceive of any possibility until now. now there is an alternative and it is called power to the people. the kind of constitutional moment that you're talking about would be a great thing. is it really necessary? what if every american woke up tomorrow and said, i'm going to choose the candidate, i'm not going to let the party bosses choose the candidate. i'm not good to let the lobbyist choose the candidate. i'm going to choose. i'm going i'm going to put my money where their mouth is. it would be overwhelming. in fact it has been overwhelming. i raise more money my 2012 campaign than any other member
of congress and i did it mostly was small donors. >> but if i could, would you be in favor of the mm a? >> yes. >> congressman jolly, jolly, yes or no. >> i think it depends on what's in it. let's fix what that says if your registered lobbyist that says you are a lobby in the banking committee then he cannot contribute to anyone who sits on the banking committee. we could do that in congress today, we would need a constitutional amendment for that. >> and do support the stop act? >> yes, but i'm done more than that. i've introduced a bill's, for which i introduced for the citizens united because i can see something bad coming. and in for after. a call to save democracy platform. we post as a democracy.net.net got more than 100,000 cosponsors for the bill and three of them were incorporated into the stop act and pass the house. they're they're filibustered in the senate but they passed the house.
so i am already getting good things done in this regard in addition to completely destroying and re-creating the idea of how you financing medical campaign. >> our next question comes from david in new york city. it has been voted up thousands of times, nearly as 5000 votes of people really want to hear the answer to this question. it follows along a very unique line for this 2016 cycle concerning the finance system. the question that david has is, what would you do to finally put an end to the big too big to fail banking systems? >> i take a different approach to this. too big to fail can be sought by transparency, by capital requirements on the large banks and by routine stress to make sure that we do not have vulnerable big banks. you know of was know was created
too big to fail? president obama brock obama. he has has created a regulatory structure that has translated to too small to survive. too small to be competitive. dodd dodd frank, 12000 pages of regulations, 400 new rules has reduced access to community banks. we lose community community banks at the rate of one per day. the lending for small businesses have evaporated because of the regulations on local community banks. the fiduciary rule which is a new service or new regulation to address financial advising is actually going to reduce services to low-income investors, low dollar investors and new investors in communities throughout florida. the over regulation has so crushed the small and medium institutions that yes, we are left with too big to fail. >> i must respectfully disagree. i do not think brock obama was responsible for the economic
crisis of 2008. and the economic. and the economic crisis was a function of too big to fail. if not for the fact that we had a small number of huge institutions there were no worse and instead it was like a heart attack and almost killed america and almost killed the entire world economy. the answer has to be more dramatic than that, if you as an institution if you're too big to fail then you aren't too big to exist. you need to be broken up in the same way that a long time ago the trust busters broke up the steel mills, they broke up the telephone company, they broke up any conglomeration of capital that was a threat to the rest of us. that is the way it has to be with the banks. anything short of that is not suspicion. right now the big banks, because because they are no not to be at risk to feel and up borrowing much cheaper than the small banks, not because of regulation but because essentially uncle sam will pick up the tab if they are in any risk. that is something that will never change must we break them up. we take in execution with a chilling dollar balance sheet and we divided into
$200 billion, they will survive. i swear to you, nothing bad will happen to them. but what will happen to us is will no longer be at risk of an economy could collapse any day because some wild trader, probably sniffing cocaine and set making a trade that could bring down an entire institution and maybe the world economy at the same time. >> and based on wall street. >> let me tell you, there are 1 quadrillion outstanding shares of derivatives right now. one quadrillion. you know you know that is, that is 1000 trillions. that's how much is on the bank balance sheets, implicitly or explicitly. $1 quadrillion. we produce in this country 16,000,000,000,000 dollars of of goods and services per year. if someone makes mistakes that 60 years with our production, that's 20 years years worth of the world's production. we can afford to be playing russian roulette with our economy every single trading
day. >> saw a follow-up to that, it it seems like both of you, if i'm hearing you correctly are against the proposition that something is too big to fail and that is a negative on the system. so how do you define that? where do you do you draw the line when something needs to be trusted and someone needs to be broken up? on biggest too big. >> i would ask the question, how does government break up a financial institution arbitrarily? what does that mean for the current customers? their? their ways in which we can protect investors. take variations of the role that's in place to prohibit proprietary trading in certain products. if we exempt small institutions from some of the requirements but perhaps apply
the rule, we can protect the vulnerability than what we saw ten years ago. at the end of the day, if we insist, we can do this through regulation, we insist on sufficient, capital requirement to back investments, we insist on transparency of the large bank and then on transparency of the large bank and then routine stress testing, to ensure those banks actually can make their commitments. we can prevent things. with respect to alan, wire community banks feeling at a rate of one per day? why are there less community-based lending services to communities from florida? why are there fewer services and investment advising from small firms throughout florida in your community, the person, man or woman you go to church with an they've been your financial advisor for years and you get a letter last week saying sorry, because of the new fiduciary rule of this administration, i can no longer service your account. that is evaporating in our local communities and it's empowering too big to fail. >> again, i have to disagree. there is why you why you have smaller institutions having trouble competing is simply because the big institutions have basically what amounts to a government guarantee.
their cost, therefore for that very reason much less of the borrowing cost of the smaller institution. the economy has failed basically forward bailout. i want to point out that we have done every single thing that was just recommended, 2008 or before that we still would've had a crash. the only way to avoid this happening and way to avoid this happening and it will happen sooner or later is a question of when, it's going to happen unless we take control of the big banks, break them up, and make them safer us. >> just a follow up quickly, it sounded like all of the prescriptions that you mention, the stress tests etc. are what dodd frank does. are you print happy with dodd frank in that regard and you think it's sufficient to maintain these banks order so they will not cause the kind of class speemac.think it went way too far with the amount of regulations and rules, 12000 pages, for new rules, even alan joined with me and others on
providing relief on auto loans. we tried to do the same, some of us on mortgage loans. on exempting or at least raising the asset level of small banks to have relief under dodd frank. dodd frank has hurt services to the people who need it very most. so what we see through stress testing is the vulnerability of a system that yes we can precisely address, again, it is this administration that has driven up the small lenders. >> so from what i gather you like some of dodd frank and you want to do all the things you described in dodd frank does do, you think it just is too much. so your for less regulation of the bank, am i getting it wrong. >> less regulation under dodd frank, absolutely, yes. >> so your for breaking them up in europe are less. >> but i would ask how to you break it up? on his government inject itself into a private institution break it up? >> how do we break up the telephone companies? that's within my lifetime,
should people remember there used to be mom and my bell another dozens of other providers, including through your cable company. you can get internet service and phone service through your internet company. we've done it over again stretching all the way to the sherman act in 1890s. pretty sure if there's one thing government has mastered it is how to do this and how to do it right. it's not that complicated. we had a rule until recently that said you had to separate investment banking from other banking. that rule is now out the window. all we have to do is restore that rule and that's a big step toward eliminating the problem too big to fail. >> as you can tell we're diving into issues more in depth to make sure that you get the answers that you wanted. let's move onto the next question. social security. gloria from tampa, florida asked. it was number three nationally in the voting number one in florida and the voting, what will you do in your position to keep social security and medicare strong?
>> i'm one of the republican's who has regularly voted against the budget presented by my side of the aisle because i believe some of the changes that makes for people under 55 are too aggressive. i'm 43 years old, i'm not too young for the government to honor the promise of social security and medicare that has been made to me. the way i approach reforms as this, if you have been in the system for 40 quarters, that's how you invest, i think we should treat that is so you're vested in the rules apply will apply, no changes, let's recognize the out year of that obligation because congress has been so bad at the math last 30 years it has created an out your debt. put it on the balance sheet and on it as debt. if you're new to the workforce, you are still going to have the best social security medicare system in the world. it might look different than what today's look like. but if you're currently vested
in social security or medicare, but secure that promise, it has been made, let's honor it no changes in benefits but then recognize the out year. we have $19 trillion in debt if we don't camp out your obligation that number goes up threefold if you can't bout your obligations. we need to be responsible about pin it down. >> as you're answering the same question tells the difference between your two positions would be helpful. >> the difference between night and day. what you just does described as a cut in benefits, i am completely, adamantly opposed that. to that. in fact i wrote the note cut that hundreds of congress and millions of americans signed against any and every cut in social security medicare medicaid benefits. we have not had a rate for seniors in 40 years. seniors deserve a raise. deserve a raise. we should not be looking at how
we should cut social security and medicare, either for current or future beneficiaries, we should be looking at the fact that it's time for a raise. we have had three generations of seniors passed through the system. in those 40 years, the per capita income of the united states has increased by 97%. while during those 40 years the purchasing power social security benefits have decreased by 3%. that is why i have proposed citizens deserve a raise act which give a 2.9% increase they were cheated out of of the cost of living adjustment this year. that's why proposed with seniors have eyes, ears, teeth act which extends medicare coverage of eyes, ears, eyes, ears, teeth and has a hundred 47 cosponsors today. that is why i've introduced the packet which is the social security administration have scored and said it will eliminate any problem with financing for social security from now until the end of time. these are things that need to be done. we need need to move or not backward.
we don't need cuts, cuts cuts are hurting seniors who desperately need the benefits. >> weather is really a nine dare difference in whether you're willing to expand social security not. >> it is because the greatest would be of the collapse of the social security system because there wasn't a leadership in congress that recognize it was feeling actuarially. if we don't change the accounting medicare won't be there. it is neglect by members of congress the greatest driver of national debt is programs that have been earned. just because washington is bad at math does not mean we get to look the other way. i applaud alan for working on the cpi issue, i've introduced legislation myself that would adjust how cost-of-living increases are for seniors. to recognize seniors have unique needs. where the cost or hires than others in the population. we can honor every promise that has been made to our seniors.
nobody's trying to cut it, i promise you if we fail to address the long-term impact of the application so skinny medicare, the the greatest cut of all will happen and it will happen at the hands of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. >> i have to follow up there because in 2010 social security had a $2.8 trillion surplus. so, are you concerned that surplus is not enough? are you say met your already spent that surplus question. >> we know the benefits that will be due in the out years over the coming decades, there will be of sufficient resources in the trust fund to pay for. so what i have said, is let's let's secure the benefits for everybody that has earned them. let's as a nation we are going to honor those earned at benefits and we are going to put it on the better on sheet as a nation. the actuarial system of the current system will ensure
failure by the time of the x generations get there. that is where we need to look at appropriate reforms. i voted against male parties budget because i wanted to make changes for anybody under the age of 55. i think that's too aggressive. let's look at reforms but do it under a longer cost curve and protect the financial planning of people were in the middle of their careers. >> since these are covenants between one generation another's important to me. my master thesis at harvard was on gerontology a public policy. i start in an organization called the alliance for aging research. i was an officer of that organization more than 20 years. longer than my political career by quite a large factor. i will tell you that it bothers me to hear this idea that we have to cheat seniors in order to make the budget, budget out. that is wrong to me. there's only one small change you have to make, you have to make sure you treat every dollar like every other dollar and then it would sell the forever. talk about lebron james.
he stopped paying social security taxes in the beginning of second quarter of the first game of the season. rest of game pays nothing, rest of the 81 games, pays nothing, off-season, pays nothing. that's ridiculous. if we simply made everybody pay the same percentage of their income, the system would be sell forever and ever. >> i say met about lebron james because he left the heat? [laughter] >> so very important question for both of you, do you like and have you ever watch the avengers? >> yes but it's not as good as pc, ex. running out of the school at 3:00 o'clock going over to the candidate show and bind the latest issue of batman, superman, you can't match that with the avengers but i still love the avengers. >> we have the first ever perhaps question for by the
avenger. the hulk is here. >> hi i'm mark ruffalo, signed to say that a rapid transition to 100% clean, renewable, wind, water and and solar power in florida will create 140,000 jobs. it will eliminate 3000 premature air pollution deaths and over 50000 illnesses in florida per year. it will increase energy independence, reduce terrorism risks and reduce both the the direct and social costs of energy. with that in mind, here's the question from jen in rhode island. that got thousands of votes. >> do you accept that climate change is the single greatest threat our world faces? if yes, then then will you support or put for the legislation that keeps it more possible fields in the ground and greenhouse gases out of our atmosphere?
>> climate change. >> it is the biggest crisis man kind faces at this time. >> the answer is yes. i cannot think of anything else that could literally destroy the planet other than climate change. we run the risk not just of higher ocean levels or more storms, we run the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. no one knows whether that would happen or not or when it would happen. so were playing dice with planet earth. that's very disturbing to me. we have names for things like killing a person, killing a nation, you don't even have a name for what it means to kill a whole planet. that shows you how serious this is. i work very hard to play this. i'll give you examples. for two years in a row i passed years in a row i passed extensions on conservation efforts in people's home. this means reduced greenhouse gases, each year i've had the government handout credits of $1.3 billion in a 20% tax credit and i have done every two years
in a row. a total of 2.6 billion green energy tax credits have been handed out to people all of across the nation including in florida and it resulted in 13,000,000,000 dollars of investment in clean energy. in addition to that, passed an amendment a few months ago that helps claes our estuaries clean with a 9% increase in funding for that. i've been there. i have been fighting this battle and making sure that my children and grandchildren inherited good, green earth. >> carson jolly. >> the challenge for climate change are real. but as climate change is the greatest threat to our nation as alan just said no. >> and mike >> ..
he's wrong. it's people who want to destroy the united states of america tomorrow. let's get to the science. let's have a contest of ideas. what we need to do is continue to invest in tax incentives for clean energies, renewables, wind, solar, you name it, continue to advance research in these areas, continue to have more money to a program to invest in research, but will not work is policies of this president like the clean power plan that risks putting 300 people in putnam county out of business and
increasing utility costs for 1.6 million across the state , going to cost one county between 400,000,002.5 billion. what won't work is a fuel standard that industry can't meet, aa renewable fuel standard that continues to increase cost to industry. the largest beer distributor in the state of florida just went to an all solar roof because the return on investment is finally in a five-year window. they are able to still transition to a cleaner environment. they probably would have had to lay off of their workforce. we can do this, solve climate challenges through
incentives and research, not mandates that can be met. >> ii think we are all certainly for cheaper beer as americans. however, while i agree with that entirely, i myself am not a climate scientist. i am a journalist. and a very reputable journalistic magazine has a graph, chart, i think we can put it on the screen. this is what they have published as a future outline of the state of florida in the year 2100. the year 2,100, sorry. the waterline of the ocean rises by 5 feet. my question to both of you is, is that a realistic view of what could potentially happen to the state that you want to be one of the two senators for?
>> one of the ways we need to address that is what our municipal governments doing to underground utilities, raise elevation of roads and eventually protect life, safety, and property. there are many things that need to be done to deal with what scientists are saying is coming. i am happy to have that debate over where solutions are. i will accept the science. let's have a dove debate over the solutions. we have disagreement on the solutions. grayson: well, i want to point out, this is fortuitous. the map you just showed was off my website. i wanted people to see what this would look like once the ice caps melt and the sea level rose.
you will have a lot of people -- a lot of trouble putting it up on stilts. the only good part of that is rush limbaugh'slimbaugh's house is right on the coast, so his house goes 1st. leaving that aside, it is all tragedy and it is avoidable. the president has been the only person who has done anything about it. the presidents clean power plan actually is a means to cut our carbon emissions and pollution substantially. with regard to the auto mission, who was it that increased the fuel economy standards in this country? it was not the house of representatives, the senate, the republicans, or the democrats. and now with the president's climate agreement i think we see a way forward. i voted in favor of the so-called cap and trade bill
in my 1st term. i was punished for it. $4 million was spent to defeat me. >>moderator: if we can start to keep the answers a little bit shorter on both sides, that would be great. i want to go to a video. it is from edward in miami, florida. >> how will you work to make renewable energy more affordable in florida? a great power project not just for us the potentially neighboring counties and states. jolly: tax incentives that continue to create an industry that employs more people in the state of florida. we do that through tax incentives. we can also to continue to invest federal dollars in research, which we should.
the clean power plan was saved by the supreme court because of its irreparable financial on the states. this has been stated by the court because the president has imposed irreparable harm on states. let's reach consensus on this. let's solve this is a country and get out of this mandate that is destroying communities. grayson: look, unfortunately in public life there are people who are anti- and pro- pollution. that is just a fact. i'm suggesting the reason we have the policies we have is in the same way wall street and the military industrial complex determine policy, it is a fact of big oil determines energy policy, and that must change. what are we doing about it? what have i done about it? i passed more amendments of any other member of congress
in 26 years. signed into law by the president. four of those were what i discussed earlier. 2.6 billion in energy credits for conservation in people's homes to make home screen that would not have existed if these bills had lapsed immigration bill had not been passed. that is what i am doing and what i have done. right now in florida it is illegal for you to put solar panels on your roof and sell that electricity to the electricity company. it is illegal. we need to eliminate that law. >>moderator: next question from someone live in studio. >> politicians all over the country are getting between a woman and her dr. and taking away her constitutional right to choose. how will you protect a woman's right to choose?
jolly: i appreciate that question. i believe life begins at conception, and that life deserves to be protected. andand so for me it is about creating a culture that values life from the unborn to the child facing significant economic or hunger issues to the elderly person who, perhaps, is a shut in. i understand. i understand it is a personal issue, human issue. in the supreme court and its landmark case 40 years ago they recognize the viability of the unborn as a test when they put certain restrictions on it. for me, i believe life begins at conception. for others it might be later, but the supreme court and congress eventually possibly we will have to deal with the fact 40 years after the viability standard was created viability has changed as a result of medical science.
grayson: i think quitei think quite simply the most important right you have as a human being is the right to control your own body. i do not think there should be any shame in that. they should, if anything, be ashamed and the concept of forcing a woman to have a child she does not want to have. therefore i have adamantly opposed every effort by congress to try to restrict a woman's right to choose. i have probably opened the planned parenthood clinic in my district and i have with some degree of pride attended fundraisers and contributed to them. i think it is important women be treated with the same rights as men. believe me, if men could have abortions you could probably -- >>moderator: next we have
the founder who will ask a question on behalf of one of the people. >> i have a question from samantha more in pembroke, massachusetts. planned parenthood is under fire for doctor videos. do you support defending or defunding planned parenthood? >> defended. jolly: i willi will say two things. when the videos came out they were shocking. in the process they would have reduced medical care to individuals. there going to disqualify planned parenthood. the other thing i will tell
you is when my side of the aisle asks for an investigation i voted no. i was the only one to do so. should the issue be looked at? yes. we did not need a 4th. the party of less government or not. i vote no. >>moderator: i am a little confused. you voted no on that case, but we have had 12 investigations at the state level that have all said the video was doctored and there was nothing illegal whatsoever, but yet you voted to defund planned parenthood. if there is nothing wrong with the video, why vote that way? jolly: i voted against the investigation because it is already run its course and i don't think my party should spend three months on this issue. weissue. we can continue to assess
want -- whether there is a violation. what my legislation would have done is pending the investigation disqualify planned parenthood as a vendor but continue to provide the maximum level of resources for other -- >>moderator: but why defund planned parenthood? >> did you see the video? >>moderator: yes, but 12 investigators said it was doctored. so you don't agree with the investigation? that there was nothing wrong and they had not sold body parts? jolly: i don't know the outcome of 12 different investigations. >>moderator: okay. grayson: i think it is fair to say that americans by the millions found that practice -- tweet at me afterwards.
grayson: that is what jewish people like me have heard as a blood libel. it takes away people's rational judgment. all it can do is to her hatred and demonize people. essentially that is what you just did. that is not the appropriate way to discuss what planned parenthood is doing. god bless them, barack obama never indulges in that. the strata respect each other. that is meant to make people hate other people. >>moderator: respectfully, merely the composition of the video and what they were based upon, that was the context and is not something i am making a rule upon.
i am saying the context caused outrage because that is how they were sold. >>moderator: and it would be a violation. that was the point of the initial investigation. >>moderator: i do not claim to be an expert in the videos are investigations. >> just for the record so everyone knows, of the 12 investigations, a lot of them were conducted by republicans and one did indict, the ones who made the videos. that is the only indictment that is ever come out of that just so that we are clear. no selling a body parts whatsoever. okay. let's move forward. the next question comes from james in arkansas.
a hot topic right now. do you believe president obama supreme court pictured of a hearing before the president leaves office? grayson: the answer is yes. it is a sad situation. seven eighths of the term. they have the authority to accept or reject. i end up in the same place to get there a different way. the united states should have a hearing and consider a vote and understand rejecting the nominee is he
is wrong on the second amendment and labor unions is not obstructionism but the proper exercise of the science article on authority. if they bring it up for a vote, vote them down. pass the president to nominate someone who could actually meet approval of republicans because with the present has to accept his republicans currently control the united states senate and have the constitutional prerogative to voter nominee up or down. i believe we should have a hearing and would like to see a vote. >> as a senator for the state of florida would you meet with garland? jolly: of course. grayson: yes. >>moderator: voted in favor of citizens united. his advocates would say he had no choice, but he did further it. he voted against habeas corpus.
on those issues, very progressive. the democrat won the election would you ask president obama to end his nomination and let the next democratic president pick a different supreme court nominee? >> the answer is yes, but i wish to point out that i think it is fundamentally unfair to say in most cases, where you on this issue, thisue you yourself said that was the supreme court decided, that was the law of the land until they decide otherwise. i am pleased for members have already said they would overturn citizens united with the 5th vote. the president decided not to
i want to see those laws changes quickly as possible. the cannot curse the man for simply following precedent. >>moderator: let's move on to the next question about minimum wage. >> they are from florida. now, it is about the minimum wage. are you for a minimum wage increase on the federal level? if so would you bring it up to $15 per hour? if instead, how long until you would make it $15 an hour? >> i am forgetting people off of minimum-wage. there's already one higher than the federal poverty level and i will be willing to have that consideration.
allow for stability of financial planning by employers. the important thing, if you went to the level, a nonpartisan congressional budget office says we would have 500,000 fewer jobs. if you want to hillary clinton you would have 3.8 million fewer. with bernie sanders you would have over 6 million fewer. how do we get people off of minimum-wage and into a growing economy? the more conservative proposals. i would consider an index of the federal level that would kill jobs for the bottom 4 percent of the workforce. the people who actually need the jobs most. i was a small business owner. i went through eight months right not pay myself so wanted to keep my employees employed. if the government told me arbitrarily you must raise your salaries by 30 percent
i already was not paying myself. my only option would have been to lay people off and unemployed people in the name of minimum-wage hike. grayson: 1st, there are parts of the country with lower unemployment rather than the higher unemployment that is being described. >>moderator: i guess areas were the economy can supported. >> explained. >> let me continue. if you calculated out. that means trying to survive on $1,300 a month. no one can do that. i went through the minimum-wage challenge. i ended up dropping it because i had to take my son to the dentist.
it is impossible when you have any kind of health bill, car repair bill, anything that might throw you off track of eating nothing but ramen noodles everyday. this is america. in australia have a $16 an hour minimum wage, and they have had a booming economy for years and their unemployment is less than ours. if they can do it, then so can we. in the same thing is true across the board. in germany by law every worker gets four weeks plus of paid vacation. you have not seen the german economy collapse. there only three countries in the entire world but there is no paid vacation by law and we happen to be one of them. we treat our workers like dirt. out of the 50 largest metropolitan areas orlando is dead last of wages.
we need to be able to properly compensate people who are doing the work that makes everything possible. could not be in the studio today standing on this lectern less on maywith someone made the studio and the lectern, and they deserve more than 1400 month. >> one last follow-up, is there a number that we can go back and say, here is the minimum-wage you think is ideal. >> just like on climate change, there are very few economists as well. why the lawmakers arbitrarily choose a number? that is why i say let's index it. let's get the brightest minds in the room of figure out the number should be, index it, i get the politicians out of it. have a higher minimum wage and indexes so that employers can plan for increased wages of next year.
>> i wasi was an economist for four years and as far as i know the only one which is why can go to the economic data and tell you the arguments are false and misleading. if you gave people a 15 dollars an hour the room wage there will be more customers. they don't want to force employees to rely on food stamps or medicare. what they really want is customers. the whole economy gets elevated. >> how to somebody call employee in and say i'm sorry, i have to let you go because the government has just said ii have to give you a 30 percent raise and i am already not paying myself and they are not funds to keep you employed. the impact on job losses real. and it hits the small businesses artist. >> before i took up the
cause i met with people in tampa. i asked every one of them that question. are you willing to run the risk that you might lose your job? every single one answered yes even though they knew they might be the one. and frankly tall, with a properly managed economy like germany you would never have to worry about that. >> what keeps you from raising it to $87 an hour. >> it has to have some correspondence to value, but there is a value to people's labor and it is $15 an hour or more. the artificially subsidize it, but the only way to people survive is because the government subsidizes it. walmart is the largest welfare recipient in the country. you look at the amount of money they get medicaid
coverage, food stamps, every other form of benefits that they get, this is subsidizing that pay. >> eddie from california has a question that was voted on very enthusiastically, and many people are interested. he asked, what are your plans to deal with out of control college tuition student debt. we are right here in florida , over half of floridians students carry student debt when they graduate. the total amount exceeds a billion. florida has double the national average of student debt loans in default. in the average floridian those both of 26,000.
performance. grayson: i have introduced an act that includes everything just described. it also makes public college free. there are seven other countries around the world were public colleges free. ask yourself, how can slovenia afford to provide public college in english were florida and california and new york and iowa and new hampshire somehow cannot. if you look at what is being spent, it is a drop in the bucket. a tiny fraction of the states overall budget. a substantial part. it is not a new idea. -- 18 floridians. my father went to the city
college of new york, and there is no reason we can't make that same promise to everyone else. you want people to reach their potential in life. talents, skills, interest. at want to make sure everyone reaches their full potential. .. if the voters in florida want it to bend the university system can decide how to pay for it and the taxpayers would have to accept that and there isn't a role for that. i disagree on this. >> let's move on to the next
question from chicago asks a question and then as usual those about. they've been ambitiously mistreated in the system i systd private prisons are at the root she says and if elected will either of you support abolishing private prisons? >> the answer is yes. one way to look at what the government is is the government holds a monopoly on the legitimate force. whether we are talking about killing foreign soldiers or the police arresting anyone were talking about a judgment in court being enforced by the garnishment or for that matter talking about imprisoning somebody. the core function of government is that so it makes no sense whatsoever to contracted out. it's fundamentally irresponsible to say to someone like you make a buck off of incarcerating samoans in the deal legitimizes the entire system.
the reason prison guards do what they do and it's a very difficult and dirty job, it's a horrible job to have. the reason they can do what they do is because they stand there in the place of you and me. they stand at a place the entire u.s. citizens altogether having making the decisions to the justice collectively once you start to say to people we will give you an extra dollar if you cut back on the rations were put three or four prisoners in a cell instead of only two you've corrupted the system and a fundamental way and we cannot allow. >> said melissa and i think privatization as an issue for the elected leadership to decide if that is the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars question is the administration of prisons regardless if it i is public or private is it being done responsiblresponsibly and as hes violating the law and the way they are administering in prison they should be held responsible for that. a dear friend made mistakes and
spend time in a state prison in florida. he faced significant healthcare challenges that i don't believe were being responded to adequately. i don't know if it was a private or a public prison. to me it didn't matter. the issue is that the administration was failing and so, should we prohibit privatization? perhaps there are areas that is working for the taxpayers but if someone is violating the law they should be held accountable for it. >> you mentioned this affect ths african-americans and the question i think is exactly right but it doesn't stop there. 23% of the african-american adults in the state in florida can't vote because their rights have not been restored. it's the highest proportion in the entire country. we have to not only treat prisoners as if they are human beings and not profit centers with a profit motive but we also have to understand that when they served their time i serve o let it go and have them rejoin
the family of american citizens with full rights. >> there've been some studies showing private prisons are not really cost savers in arizona actually cost $1,600 more per inmate per year but to me the larger question was not just the effects that it has and the cost that it has put the fact that we incentivized some companies to take away the freedoms of some americans is there something inherently problematic with that and legislators should be held accountable for that? there may be a model that saves taxpayers dollars and does appropriately administer a prison system and if there's one thathere isone that works we sht preclude it. >> we are going to the voting rights next. so what would you do to improve