[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] >> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 33 aye votes, 28 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. i might just note both mr. courtney and mr. mcarthur talked to me about circumstances

make them hard for to be here at this particular moment. i don't want to speak for them. they both have very food reasons at this moment. unfortunately the committee has got to proceed. the question occurs on amendment number 184 by mr. bishop regarding utah test range. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [inaudible conversations].

>> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there are 35 aye votes, 26 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. question occurs on amendment 28 by mr. bridenstein regarding the lesser prairie chicken. clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [role call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [inaudible conversations]. >> clerk will report the result. >> mr. chairman, there are 33 aye votes, 29 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. question occurs on amendment 194 by mr. coffman on military land act.

clerk will call the roll. [rot call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote. [inaudible conversations]. >> clerk will report the result.

>> mr. chairman, there are 33 aye votes, 28 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. if there are no further amendments to this portion of the mark, chair recognizing mr. wittman for purposes of don'ting a motion. >> i move to adopt the subcommittee report on the subcommittee on readiness. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in an of the chair the ayes have it. square rum being present and the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. let me give everybody where we are. we're supposed to have votes on the floor, in the next, i don't know, 15 minutes or some we're going to proceed to personnel and get as far as we can before votes. based on a little bit earlier today, we have got about the 12 amendments in personnel are stand-alone amendments to be offered and debated. then we have strategic forces

where we've got about 20. we have the full committee where we've got 40 some odd. some of those hopefully will be worked out. that gives you kind of a road map what we've got before us yet this evening. the committee will not receive the report of the subcommittee on military personnel. pursuant to committee rule seven 10:00 and in consultation with mr. smith we'll postpone recorded votes on amendment in this particular subcommittee until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this mark in front of you a part after open and bipartisan process. provides warfighters, retirees that they have earned and deserved. as always guiding consideration of our work is the readiness of all-volunteer force while insuring we do not break faith with our servicemembers, retirees and survivors. we have studied way to reform

benefits received by servicemembers and their families. through the benefits of beneficiary and change and value of stainability of benefit, whether it was commissary system or deliver of quality health care. additionally we focused on significant policy issues such as modernization of ucmj we heard many voices and considered expert opinions on these issues. we're appreciative for everyone's input from our current and retired servicemembers, the military service organization, the department of defense, the military compensation and retirement modernization commission an many others. we seriously considered all views and concerns before deciding on a way forward. i want to express my appreciation to ranking member davis and rest of the subcommittee for their participation. specifically this year's proposal insures fully funded pay raise for all servicemembers. reduces reductions in end strengths, lessening strain on force and their families. reforms commissary system. improving the system to it

remains an excellent value for shoppers. expands leave for dual military adopted parents. includes house-passed bill that individual's service determined to be active duty service are eligible for internment at arlington national cemetery. modernizes the code of military justice, to address issues by the review group. this will improve the system's efficiency and transparency while enhancing victim's rights. finally i want to express my appreciation for the work of the study committee staff. and our fao detailee. i encourage all members to approve the mark and i yield balance of my time. >> chair recognizing the ranking member of subcommittee, gentlelady from california, ms. davis. >> i want to thank dr. heck working in collegial fashion. recognize once again that the staff worked also in bipartisan

manner to develop this mark and jenette james, come len bossy and ann tynan and craig green. we had to say it twice. i think the chairman was probably agree with me as well, sometimes we agreed one one another more than we now and agreed with the staff but we worked well together and that is really what was so important. the subcommittee mark includes many provisions will provide the military services flexibility to recruit and retain members of our armed forces and continue our commitment to taking care of military families. includes reforms that will put the commissary on a sustainable path while protecting benefit for our servicemembers, retirees and their families. as dr. heck mentioned we included extensive reforms of the military justice system. these provisions are really result of two years of work by the military justice working group that was tasked with modernizing the uniform code of military justice. it also improves child abuse reporting by statutorily requiring department of defense

to he provide for annual family advocacy program report regarding child abuse and domestic violence at the same time as the report from the sexual assault prevention and response office. as i have stated in our subcommittee markup, i support continued pay raises for servicemembers, but i am concerned, i will reiterate that i support certainly this portion of the mark. but i am concerned that by increasing them above the requested amount we are taking fund from other critical priorities including and specifically readiness. i find it equally concerning that we would restrict the president's ability to make changes to the pay raise as authorized in statute. any additional money in a military family's budget greatly matters but just to give you a sense of the scale involved, this additional, half percent pay raise will provide an e-4 with additional $11 a month. but it will cost a total of $330 million, which must be

taken out of somewhere. somewhere else in this budget. as my colleague mentioned earlier, you may have seen the fox news segment highlighting aviation mechanics in the marine corporation who have to scrounge for parts because they do not have the funding to purchase them in order to keep their combat aircraft flying. that's readiness money, which keeps our troops supplied and ready to fight. this proposal will further raid those accounts in order to fund a pay increase again of about $11 a month for an e-4, when i speak to the sailors and marines the message to me is clear. the lack of these parts creates a service morale problem. the chairman spoke as well about looking into the eyes of pilots, mechanics, commanders, who don't have necessarily what they need. so we want to be concerned and compensating as fully as possible but at the same time this directly impacts our

ability to keep our troops safe. i'm also concerned about the committee's increase of 209,000 soldiers through the active army as well as increases it includes for preserve component. requiring number of soldiers without requiring money or support to pay for it in the base budget the committee is offering an unfunded mandate that would result larger but more hollow force. the world we all know is a very, very dangerous place in many places. and the pace of combat operations will most likely not i am did minute ish in the near future. so in light of these dangers, i don't disagree that the army may need more soldiers but the army has not provided is with requested number, nor have they told congress how they would create the appropriate force structure to use these additional soldiers. the mark already removes 1.1 billion from military

personnel accounts for oversees contingency operations, the applying money to cover base budget increase of 20,000 troops for army end strength. so as a result, there will only be enough funding for oco contingency to last seven months. that assumes current operations, don't increase. even worse than that, we could end up in a situation where congress having required the army to increase its end strength, then ends up forcing the army to draw down by 30,000 soldiers in a single subsequent year with this course of action. mr. chairman, i bring this all forward because it's important for us to keep it in context and keep it in perspective. as i said earlier i do support the mark but i continue to think that we have to be focused on these concerns as well. i look forward to continuing with the chairman to insure that we resource our military services in a responsible manner. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentlelady. other discussion regarding this portion of the marks?

i yield myself just briefly. i just say, i do not disagree with the concerns that the gentlelady and ranking member before her have laid out regarding what happens in the future. i think those are all valid points. we do need to keep in mind. at same time what we have before us right now is the fy, fiscal year, 2017 national defense authorization act and we do not add new people to the army but we prevent it from being cut any further and hopefully new congress and a new administration will take a different view as far as permitting further cuts in the army and of course in the other services. the only other point i just mention is, i take the gentlelady's point that the pay raise is $11 a month for an e-4. yet that is co-pay to take a kid to the doctor. that's what the formula says it

is supposed to be and if the formula's wrong, maybe we all need to look at that and redo the formula but for several years now, what the formula says they're supposed to get they have not gotten and so i think that's part of the reason that many of us think that we ought to have the full formula which is, you know, admittedly not much, 2.1%, $11 a month, but that $11 a month when you're taking your kid to the doctor still adds up. i think having full pay raise this year is the right thing. preventing further cuts in the army is the right thing. and but i fully take the gentlelady's point. we have issues to deal with in the future and those do not go away by the action we take this year. is there other discussion on this portion of the mark? if not, are there amendments to

this portion of the mark? gentleman from nevada, have an amendment at this point? >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous set to call own blank package number one with amendments approved bit minority. >> that objection so ordered. if the clerk will pass out enblank number one. s [inaudible conversations]. without objection amendments are considered as read and dr. heck is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

enblanc package of number one is comprised of following. amendment 14 by mr. larson briefing concerning availability of credentials for civilian members in combat armed specialties. amendment 148, by miss davis. directing the second of defense shared parental leave in case of one member giving birth to ailed achievement amendment 149 by miss daves directs secretary of defense to address a plan of action of overpayments of student loan interest by eligible military borrowers. amendment 152 by miss mcsallies a briefing for reduced funding for "stars and stripes." amendment 171 by mr. o'roark which places responsibility for mia individuals for current conflicts under the secretary of defense instead of defense pow-mia accounting agency. amendment 218 by mr. to bees which raises authorized active duty end strength of navy from

322,900, to 32,615 to account for manpower increases necessitated by ndaa requirement the on cruiser and carrier wing force structure. amendment 243 by mr. gibson which updates title 10 hiring authorities for professional military education. amendment number 265 by mr. walls is a sense of congress adequately full time support force of military techs is essential to maintaining readiness and current size of the support force is the minimum. amendment 226 by mr. waz amends section 123.04 authority, manpower and associated costs for year of execution and provide 30-day notice to congressional defense committees. >> gentleman yields back. are there others who wish to discuss the enblanc package? if not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from nevada.

those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. further amendment, gentleman from florida? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff would please distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered as read and gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i first like to recognize the 12 cosponsors of this piece of legislation, mr. bishop, mr., mrs. bordallo, mr. miller, mr. walz, mr. jones, mr. gibson,

miss gabbard, mr. bridenstein, miss graham, mr. cook and mr. zenke. this simple amendment would permanently treat the national guard dual status military texas personnel for the purpose of furlough. dual staff texs are uniformed full-time guardsmen but get paid out of different accounts on weekdays versus drill days. the dual staff technicians wear essentially two hats. they're trained to perform a particular job in the armed forces and drill in that role like all other guardsmen. often time the dual staff techs are maintainers of aircraft and vehicles. they are the lynchpin of readiness for their entire unit are critical to the first response missions. however these currently subject to furlough. we found this out the hard way in 2013. for florida, this was particularly dangerous because of a potential hurricane was brewing off the coast, and national guard helicopters couldn't get off the ground

because maintainers were furloughed. i know every state representative faces similar natural disasters. to correct this program, congress had to pass an annual fix. three years ago mr. palazzo and i led an amendment that protected mill tecs. that passed by voice. we debate this exact same amendment in this committee during the nda markup it passed by voice. if you were here during the markup last year you also voted in favor of this amendment. i urge you all to support this simple amendment the and i yield back. gentleman from minnesota. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i would like to thank the gentleman for putting this forward. full disclosure, i was one of these techs. you wear the uniform to work. you are paid as fs. in my case was one-man armory, readiness and training administrative duties and preparation for drill,

preparation for deployment and preparation for disaster call ups was done by that person. as the gentleman said, all my techs, all my mechanics, they're furloughed, that entire guard unit is shut doesn't their readiness is reduced to zero. this is mart thing to do. these are folks that need to be there to make the unit work and it's a great fix. i yield back. mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add my voice to this due to the peculiarities of way we shape the force we have this dual status but the really, without these maintainers, without these folks who keep our vehicles and our aircraft moving, and flying, you know, we're not going to be mission capable. then the governors don't have that response as well. i know that we've done this year to year but i think it is very important we actually put this in law. so, i strongly support it. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> chaired yields to himself briefly just to say i agree with everything y'all have said.

i also believe it is a dangerous precedent to start exempting groups from sequestration. we had this discussion last year. we went ahead and adopted it i'm sure we will again. just a warning this is a dangerous territory to be starting to exempt groups. i think the better result is to fix sequestration as we have talked about. that definitely needs to be done and that will get us past that. gentlelady from california, briefly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to echo your thoughts pause we are exempting only one group in this and actually the dod has the authority to exempt categories of civilians from furloughs and has done so for life, safety for mission critical positions. so we have that in statute and i think we're better off to proceed in that way. thank you. >> i agree. questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no.

in opinion of the chair the ayes have it, ayes have it and amendment is adopted. we've got votes on the floor. ten minutes remaining. i suggest everybody get over there. i think we've got three votes and then we will resume with the amendment by mr. waltz as soon as votes are over, on the floor, please hurry back. committee stands in recess. >> at approximately 2:30 a.m. eastern the house armed services committee passed the 2017 programs bill out of the

committee. the final vote was 60-2. the rules committee will consider debate rules. the next step for the legislation is debate on the house floor. live coverage of the u.s. house continues when members return, always here on c-span. >> this morning defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs of staff chair general joseph dunford testify about the counteroperations against isis and the u.s. strategy in the middle east. see it live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> our c-span campaign 2016 bus continues to honor winners from the student competition. recently the bus went to wyoming to recognize winners from laramie high school. access to affordable higher

education is the investment of the future. then our bus traveled to south dakota visited with winners in the cities of rapid city and sioux falls. a final stop in the week included a win visit to a middle school in minnesota. they were honored for their video on water pollution. thanks to charter, and midco to coordinate the visits. be sure watch one of the top 20 winning entries at 6:50 a.m. eastern before "washington journal. >> next the debate between candidates for florida seat in the u.s. senate. congressman alan grayson, democrat and congressman david jolly, republican debated issues including money in politics, the minimum wage and the president's supreme court nominee. this debate was hosted by open debate coalition. it's an hour and 15 minutes.

♪ >> hello. i'm lilia tamm, director for the open debates competition. this is the first ever open debate for u.s. senate. we're here in orlando, during the last several days more than 900 questions were submitted by regular people across florida and across the nation. over 400,000 votes were cast online. tonight all the questions for republican congressman david jolly and democratic congressman alan grayson are coming from 30 questions that received the most votes from people like you. tonight we have two cutting-edge moderators. we have cenk uygur, from "the young turks" with 3 billion views on youtube. we have benny johnson, independent journal review. we have maria padilla on hand to deliver one of voters questions. she is founder of the blog, orlando latino.org the we'll have a cameo from a hollywood celebrity.

we have two fiery debaters each leading in numerous polls in their respective primary bass because of their political smarts. this is unprecedented matchup. something people talk about tomorrow you don't want to miss. that is coming up. first let me give awe background on open debate coalition hosting this event tonight. the coalition is comprised top progressive and conservative political leaders and top tech leaders from silicon valley. this includes our co-host, progressives change institute by stephanie taylor around adam green. we have americans for tax reform led by grover norquist. they include former strategists for george w. bush, republican national committee, senate republicans and mitt romney but also includes, naral, moveon.org, democracy for america, labor unions, women's organizations civil rights advocates and iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. we have media voices like ariana huffington and silicon valley leaders who support the crowd

source nation of debates, and wikipedia founder and we also have craig from craigslist. needless to say the members of the open debate coalition don't necessarily agree on every issue but we do agree on one core principle. the political debates must better represent the will of the people. and what that means is asking candidates top questions voted on by the people instead of silly "gotcha" questions. and it also means liberating debate footage so you don't need cable nice and tv at all. instead you can watch it on open feed available to any website, tv station, blog, social media platform or individual that wants to broadcast it. we at the coalition hope that tonight's debate serves as modeled for presidential debates later this year and it soon becomes the norm for political debate across america for every office up and down the ballot. tonight we invite you to spread the word on social media on debate. they can watch this as florida open debate.com and tweeting it

at #opendebate. let's begin the first-ever open debate for u.s. senate. i'm proud no announce our moderators. cenk uygur, from the young turks and benny johnson from independent journal review. >> our job as moderators to ask follow up questions you get answers to the questions you ask. boy there were a lot of questions out there. 900 questions submitted. 400,000 votes which is amazing so i want to thank our hosts here, open debate coalition, co-hosts, progressive change institute and americans for tax reform. this event will last about 75 mints. there will not be any questions about boxers or briefs or iphones or blackberrys or any of that. why? because you didn't ask them. no one proposed those questions. nobody voted on those questions. we've got a lot of substance which you will see throughout the debate here. so, i want to make sure everybody understands that we'll have one minute for the initial

answers for the candidates and then 45 seconds for follow-ups. anything beyond that is moderator's discretion. with that, benny takes it away. >> for me by the way it's briefs. so, i have the distinguished honor of introducing real stars of the show the two congressman joining us tonight. the first congressman that i'm introducing is congressman david jolly. he is a native floridian. he is lawyer by trade and practice. and he tells me that he is at one time been to every major league baseball stadium in america. thank you so much for joining us, congressman. >> thank you. >> the second congressman i'm introducing tonight is congressman alan grayson, this gentleman is known for his fantastic cowboy boots and exceptional taste in american flag ties. which he tells me even got a brand new tie on amazon just for this debate and it doesn't disappoint.

beautiful american flag tie. >> boxers or briefs? >> not asking. >> so let's get started. we did a coin flip right before the debate. congressman grayson won. he elected to do his opening statement. a minute for opening statements. thank you. >> thank you, my job as member of congress and hopefully next year as senator is simple one. make sure every floridian, every american can be all he or she can be, unchained by poverty, by poor health, by a lack of education, or by discrimination. that's my job. now, more and more what we find is that people are struggling to be able to accomplish that. that in equality is rising dramatically in america. fewer and fewer people have a job, have a home. fewer and fewer people have a car or any sort of savings for their retirement or either health coverage. that has to end. i want to see an america, i want to help make an america where everyone can see a doctor. where he or she is sick and get

care they need to stay healthy and alive. i want to see america where compensation for work is actually a fair day's pay for fair day's work. that means health coverage for you and your family. that means much higher minimum wage. paid sick leave and paid vacations. above all i want to see a new deal for seniors. seniors lee do i have a raise. there is 40 years since any increase in social security benefits. i'm working hard right now in the house of representatives to make sure seniors get the raise they deserve and were denied and get the raise in the future as well as extending he had in care to cover your eyes, ears and teeth. a lot may sound like common sense but the political system is created to frustrate, to halt, to stop progress. i have been named the most effective member of congress because of all the good things i've got endone for people time and time again. i want to do more of that in the senate, thank you. >> up next, congressman jolly. >> thank you, thank you to the open debate coalition are.

thank you to each one of you who submitted questions. and thank you to my colleague, alan, for agreeing to format as well. i think is a very good thing. i've been in congress only two years now. i made it a point every day to fight for the people of florida, put it all on the line every single day. for our veterans who face the health care crisis i introduced legislation to empower them to choose where they received their health care. for our seniors i introduced legislation to create a new index for how i calculate cost of living adjustments that reflects the true costs to the elderly. for our young people, i have championed early childhood education, student nutrition, student readiness. for our homeowners and businesses i have championed flood insurance relief. flood insurance reform and yes, what i believe the president has overstepped or is wrong in issues from foreign policy to economic security i have challenged the president on behalf of the people of florida. and at the end of the day the most important reform we can make is to reform congress which

is why many of you may 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 crib shin from you. regardless of what your priority is, a balanced budget, border security, immigration, reform, early childhood education the reason the advances are not being made because we have congress spending too much time asking you for money and not doing their job. why i've introduced the stop act. i'm going to fight every day to get it done. leave it all on the table. >> moderator: thank you. now let's get started with our questions. as promised first one is from a young american, you will see that this is unlike a lot of other debates. and he asked that in new york, his name is logan, it got voted up almost to the very top. that is why we're presenting first. on campaign finance reform. remember, every single one of these questions in the top 30 based on florida votes.

this is obviously for the florida senate seat. logan. take it away. >> reform the campaign finance system. 90% of the 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 finance system that people can trust? >> moderator: congressman jolly, you brought this up. first question. it goes to you. >> i appreciate the question from logan. one of the things we can do get congress back to work, off the phones asking people for money. that is congressional reform. i'm a republican that can tell you there is too much money in politics. talk about transparency, accountability. make sure any political message we know what it comes problem. we have to balance constitutional privilege to participate in election how they choose with reasonable regulations. let's start by passing the stop act. get members of the congress off the phone shaking down the american people for money. that is one way to do it. let's address how we get to

better campaign finance system than we have now. i was elected at time most expensive congressional race in history. almost $14 million in little over 10 weeks in one county. imagine what that $14 million could have done for the county of pinellas county, florida, instead of being spent on tv we can do better. i will work with alan or any republican or democrat to try to get to better place than we are right now. >> moderator: we'll do follow-ups after each person gets a chance to respond for a minute. congressman grayson. >> we in this campaign are creating a new paradigm for campaign finance. it is a left solution. i am only member of congress out of 435 of us who financed most of his 2014 successful campaign with small donors. i'm only member of congress who did that in 2012 as well. device in a row, one out of 435. i'm only member of congress running for senate right now who is financed most of his campaign through small donors. only one.

we have had over 125,000 people come to the modestly-named we can site, senator with guts dot-com to make a contribution this is the revolution. it is happening in front of their eyes. there are two-ways to raise money. you can go to the billionaire and multinational corporations and go to lobbyists and pacs and beg them for cash in return for favors. we know what the favors are. they are bailouts. no-bid contracts. deregulation as they call it. they're tax breaks. it is quid pro quo. well the people who come to my website, senatorwithguts dot-com, all is 25,000 contributed to them, they want nothing in return for that are money but good government. that is the way you do it. i was in the courtroom when the citizens united decision was determined. i was only public official in the courtroom, mitch mcconnell to seats with my life. you and i discussed this on the air, jack.

i said on msnbc show if we do nothing you can kiss this country good-bye. i'm doing something. >> moderator: force follow-up for congressman jolly. the stop act involves representatives not calling donors. >> that's right. >> moderator: does someone call them? does on someone on your staff still call them, if so do we have still same private financingish on hand, you're not making calls? >> we know about the amount of money in politics. this is about the amount of time it takes to raise money. doesn't apply to challengers. stop act does not. only applies to sitting members of the house and senate. it says you are cheating taxpayers if you spend 20 to 30 hours a week raising money instead of doing the job you ran to do. hopefully this will give breathing room to my colleagues on left and right to fight what they believe in. get back to work and get off the phone. it leaves in place current campaign finance construct. i'll tell you one of the reasons why. we can get the stop act done right now.

we can get it done this year. campaign finance i'm afraid with all complexities is multiyear effort to actually get it done. i'm willing to work with anybody on campaign finance reform but i don't want that to distract something we can accomplish today which is the stop act. >> moderator: i want to show you guys a graph and get your response real quick. this is based on a princeton and northwestern study. for two decade they looked at it. >> i'm mark rough la low. >> not yet, mark -- ruffalo. >> you can not stop "the hulk." >> moderator: they found out unfortunately public policy is not related to public opinion. in ideal democracy you would have diagonal line that if 100% of american people, wanted, would have 100% chance of getting passed that would be democracy. diagonal line. flat line is 90% of the americans. no eon public policy at all.

yellow line is for economic elite. they are much closer to ideal. they have democracy but we don't. because they have the money. congressman grayson, a, how do you resolve this, benny from georgia got asked, it got voted up, are you in favor of 2 eighth amendment tonights constitution to make sure you put an end to money in politics? >> we live in oligarchy that is a fact. the fact if you're member of congress on most committees, somebody comes to your office with bundle of checks before a vote from lobbyists voting in favor of that bill. lobbying in favor of that bill. you vote for the bill. you get another bundle of checks afterward. it is that bad. not just talking about two or three or four or five members of congress. i'm talking about 434 of them. it's pervasive. that is how it's done. and frankly, nobody can even conceive of any other possibility until now. now there is an alternative and

it is called, power to the people. the kind of constitutional amendment you're talking about would be a great thing but is it really necessary? what if every american woke up tomorrow and said, i'm going to choose the candidates. i'm not going to let the party bosses choose the candidates. i'm not going to let lobbyists choose candidates. i'm going to choose candidates. i will put my money where their mouth is. it will be overwhelming t has been overwhelming. i raised more money in my 2012 campaign than any other member of congress. i did it mostly with small donors. >> moderator: if i could, would you be in favor of the amendment? >> yes. >> moderator: congressman jolly? >> depends what is in it. i think that 20-year effort take our eye off the ball. fix what alan said tomorrow passing a law, registered lobbiest, lobbying banking committee you can't contribute to anybody who sits on banking committee. we could do that by act of congress today. we don't need constitutional amendment to do that. >> moderator: follow-up,

congressman grayson, would you support the stop act? >> yes. but i have done more than that i introduced eight bills. four i introduced before citizens united. i could see something bad coming and four afterward. it is safe democracy platform. got more than 100,000 cosponsors, citizens cosponsors for bills, three grayson bills were incorporated into the disclose act and actually passed house. they were filibustered in the senate but they were passed in the house. i'm already getting good things done in this regard. in addition to completely destroying and recreating how you finance a political campaign. >> moderator: all right. our next question comes from david, in new york city. and it has been voted up thousands and thousands of times, nearly has 5000 votes. 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 system? congressman jolly. >> so, i take a little different approach to this. too big to fail can be solved by transparency, by capital requirements on the large banks and by routine stress tests to make sure we don't have vulnerable big banks but you know who has created too big to fail? it is president barack obama. because he has created a regulatory structure that has translated to too small to survive. too small to be competitive. dodd-frank, 12,000 pages of regulation, 400 new rules has reduced access to community banks. we lose community banks at rate of one per day. . .

yes, we are left with too big to fail. grayson: i must respectfully disagree. i don't believe barack obama was responsible for the economic crisis in 2008 and that crisis was a function of too big to fail. if not for the fact way to small number of few institution it would've been the worst and instead of like a heart attack and almost killed america and almost killed the entire world economy. the answer has to be must -- much more dramatic. if you are too big to fail, then you are too big to exist. you need to be broken up in the same way a long time ago the trust sponsors broke up the steel mills, the telephone company. they broke up any kind of the conglomeration of capital.

that's the way it's got to be with the banks. anything short of that is not sufficient. right now the big banks because they are known not to be at risk to fail end up borrowing much cheaper than the small banks. not because of regulation. essential to uncle sam will pick up the tab if there over any risk. that's something that's ever going to change unless we break them. taken institution with 1 trillion-dollar balance sheet and break into five institutions with $200 billion. they will survive. i swear to you nothing bad will happen to them. what will happen to us is we will no longer be at risk of an economy that could collapse any day because some wild eyed trader probably sniffing cocaine into making a trade that could bring down an entire institution and maybe the world economy at the same time. >> moderator: is that based on wolf of wall street? grayson: there are 1 quadrillion

outstanding shares of derivatives right now. 1 quadrillion. that's 1000, trillion. that's how much is on these banks balance sheets, explicitly or implicitly. $1 quadrillion. we produce in this country $16 trillion of goods and services every you. if somebody makes a mistake, that's 60 years worth of production, 20 years of the whole world production. we can't afford to be playing what would you call it, russian roulette with our economy every single trading day. >> moderator: diving into the specifics, it seems both of you if i'm hearing you correctly are against the proposition of something too big to fail. and that it's a net negative on the system. how do you define that court were to draw the line when something needs to be trust busted and something needs to be broken up? how big is too big? jolly: i would ask the question how does government breakup a financial institution

arbitrarily? what does that mean for the current customers? the ou are ways we can protect investors. take variations of local role that is going place to prohibit proprietary trading in certain products. if we exempt small institutions from some of the requirements that perhaps we applied a variation to the large banks, we can protect what we saw 10 years ago. at the end of the day if we insist and we can do this through regulation, if we insist on sufficient capital requirements to back investments, insist on transparency of the large banks and then routine stress testing to ensure that those banks actually can meet their commitments. we can prevent this. listen, with respect to alan, what our community makes failing at a rate of one at a? y. catalyst communities linking services to communities throughout florida? what are there fewer services and investment advising from

small firms throughout florida in your community, the person you go to church with com and david your financial advisor for a jupiter last week saying sorry, because of the new rule i can no longer serve a short account. that's evaporating at a local communities and is only empowering too big to fail. grayson: again i have to disagree. the reason why you of small institutions having trouble competing is simply because the bigger institutions have basic what amounts to a government guarantee. they -- their borrowing costs are for the very reason much less than borrowing costs a small institutions. it's not an economy of scale. it's basically a forward bailout. if we have done every single thing that congress jolly just recommended in 2008 or before that, we still would've had a crush. the only way to avoid this happening, it will happen sooner or later, a question of when, it will happen unless we take control of big things, break

them up and make them safe for us. >> moderator: just a follow-up it is unlike all the description imagine the stress test, et cetera are what dodd-frank does. are you happy with dodd-frank in that regard and you think it is sufficient to maintain these banks order so they will not cause the kind of collapse -- try to dodd-frank with way too from which a lot of regulations and rules. 12,000 pages, 400 the rules. even alan join with me and others on providing relief on auto loans. we tried to do the same, some of us on mortgage loans. on accepting or at least raising the acid level of small banks to have relief under dodd-frank. dodd-frank hazard service to the people who need it the very mo most. and so what we see through stress testing is the vulnerability, then yes, we can precisely address. but again it is this administration that has driven out the small interest.

>> moderator: from what i gather, you like some of dodd-frank an that you want to o all the things you describe the dodd-frank does do, you just think it does little to much. so you're far less regulation? am i getting it wrong? jolly: absolutely, yes. >> moderator: so you're for breaking them up and your foremost -- track of how does government inject itself into a private institution and break it up? grayson: how did we break up the telephone company? that's within my lifetime. i'm sure people remember they used to be just ma bell and now there are dozens of different providers and cell phone services including her cable company. you can get cell phone service on the internet company right now. it's not that difficult. we done over and over again stretch all the way back to the sherman act in the 1890s. i'm pretty sure if there's one thing the government has mastered its how to do this and how to do it right. it's not that complicated. we had a rule until recently the subject of separate investment banking from other banking.

that is out of the window. all we have to do is restore the rule and that's a big step forward. >> moderator: she danced until we are diving into the issues a little bit more in depth to make sure you get the answers you want to. let's move onto the next question, social security. gloria from tampa, number three national into voting him number one in florida in the voting. what will you do in your position to keep social security and medicare strong? let's start with congressman jolly. jolly: i'm one of the republicans who has voted against the budget presented by my side of the aisle because i believe some of the changes it makes a people under 55 are too aggressive. i am 43, i'm not too young for the government to honor the promise of social security medicare that's been made to me. the way i approach reforms is this. if you have been in the system for 40 quarters, that's how you

invest, 40 quarters go i think we should treat that as though you are vested. the rules that apply will apply, no changes. let's recognize the out your debt of that obligation because congress has been bad at math, it has created an out your debt. let's put on the balance sheet and own it as a debt. if you are new to the workforce, you're still going to have the best social security and medicare system in the world. it might look different than what today's looks like. but if you're currently vested in social security or medicare, let secure the promise. it has been made. let's al on writ, no changes in benefits but then recognize out your debt. we have $19 trillion in debt. if you don't count the audi obligatioobligatio ns, that number goes up threefold. let's recognize that and be responsible of a painted out and putting it on the balance sheet. >> moderator: tell us the difference between your two positions. grayson: the difference between night and day.

what congressman jolly just described is a cut in benefits albeit just for future beneficiaries about the current beneficiaries. i am adamantly opposed to the. i wrote that no constitution at 100 members of congress and 3 million american citizens signed against any and every cut in social security and medicare and medicaid benefits. we have not had a raise for seniors in 40 years. seniors deserve a raise. we should not be looking at how we should cut so-so security. cut medicare either for current or future beneficiaries. we should be looking at the fact it's time for a raise. in those 40 years with a three generations of seniors pass through the system. the per capita income of the united states has increased by 97%. while during those 40 years the purchasing power of social to the benefits has decreased by 3%. that's what i propose seniors

deserve a raise act which gives 2.2.9% increase they were cheated out of their cost-of-living adjustment this year. that's why proposed seniors have eyes, ears and teeth at which extend medicare that has 147 cosponsors as we cq today. that's what i've introduced a scrap the cap act which the social security administration has gordon says it would eliminate any problem of financing and social security from now until the end of time. these are the things that need to be done. need to move forward not backward. we don't need cuts. cuts are hurting seniors who desperately need these benefits. >> moderator: tell us whether it's a night and day difference in whether you're willing to spend social security or not printing it is night and day. jolly: if we don't change the accounting, social security will not be there. medicare would not be the. it is neglected by members of congress who refuse to recognize

that the greatest driver of our national debt is in programs that have been promised and have been earned. such as because washington is bad at math that doesn't mean we get to look the other way and senior should pay the penalty. i applaud alan for working on the cbi issue. to recognize the seniors have unique needs when it comes to health care and other issues where costs are higher than others in the population. we can on every promise that has been made to our seniors. nobody is time to cut it i promise you if we fail to address the long-term impact of the obligations of social good and medicare, the greatest cut will happen and will happen at the hands of frankly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who refuse to touch the issue. >> moderator: i've got to follow up because in 2010 social security had to point a trillion dollar surplus. are you concerned that surplus is not enough or are you saying

we spent that surplus, that's why we're going to run out of money? >> that timeline, the benefits that will be due in out years will be insufficient resources in the trust fund to pay for. what i said is let's secure the benefits for everybody that is earned an. let's say as a nation we will honor those aren't benefits and put on the balance sheet as an obligation of the nation. but the actuarial assistant of the current social security and medicare systems will ensure failure by the time the youngest generations get there. that's what we need to look at the proper reforms. i voted against my own parties budget because we want to make changes for anybody under the age of 55. i think it's too aggressive. let's do it over a longer coast guard that protects the financial planning a people who were in the middle of their careers. grayson: listen, so-so script medicare our covenants between one generation and another. this is important to me. my math thesis at harvard was on

jerry daugherty. i was an officer for more than 20 years. i will tell you that it galls me to this idea that we have to keep seniors in order to make the budget out. that's just wrong. there's only one small change in a to make to get to make sure you treat every dollar like every other dollar and then it is solvent forever. let's talk lebron james. he stopping salsas to taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season. rest of the game is nothing. rest of the 81 games in the season, pays nothing. the off-season still pays nothing. that's ridiculous. if we simply make everybody pay the same percentage of their income, the system is solvent for ever and ever and ever. >> moderator: are you saying that about lebron james because he left of the heat? [laughter] that seems very personal.

very important question, the important question for both of you. do you like and have you ever watched the avengers? >> yes, but is not as good as d.c. comics. running out of school at 3:00 going over to the candy store and buy a new issue of batman, superman, flash, green lantern. i still love the avengers. >> moderator: we have the first i prefer stuff or perhaps question for u.s. senatorial debate i and a venture, the hold is here with a very green question. >> hi. i am mark ruffled. scientists say a rapid transition to 100% clean renewable wind water and solar power in florida will create 140,000 jobs. eliminate 3000 premature air pollution deaths and over 50,000 illnesses in florida per year,

increase energy independence, reduce terrorism risk and reduce both direct and social costs of energy. with that in mind, here's the question from jennifer in rhode island that got thousands of votes. >> do you accept that climate change is the single greatest threat our world faces? and if yes, then will you support or put forth legislation that keeps more fossil fuels in the ground and greenhouse gases out of our atmosphere? grayson: the answer is yes. i can think of anything else that could literally destroy the planet other than climate change. we run the risk not just of higher ocean levels are more storms. we run the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect the the windows whether that will happen. so we are playing dice with planet earth. that's very disturbing.

we have names for things like killing a person, killing a nation. we don't have a name for what it means to kill a whole planet. that shows you a serious business. i've worked very hard to avoid this. let me give you some examples. for two years i passed extensions on conservation efforts in people's homes. this means reduce greenhouse gases. each year i've had a government handout credits of $1.3 billion in a 20% tax credit, and i've done that for two years in a row. so a total of 2.6 billion recent greenhouse get gas taxpayers have been handed out to people all across the nation and has resulted in $13 billion of investment in clean energy. in addition i passed an amendment a few months ago that keeps our rivers clean with a 9% increase in funding. i have been there. i've been fighting this battle and making sure that my children and my grandchildren inherit a good green earth.

jolly: the challenge is for climate change a real. but is climate change the greatest threat to our nation? no. the greatest threat to our nation our agents that they are like the guy we saw in san bernardino who killed 14 people in the name of jihad. the greatest threat we face as a nation is a nuclear-armed iran to a said they wished to destroy the united states. the greatest threat we face as a nation are people who wish to destroy us tomorrow. that's the threat we have to address right now. that's the immediate address. when the president stood before the state of the addresses of the greatest threat we face is climate change, he's wrong. the greatest threat we face are people who want to destroy the united states of america tomorrow. that's what we need to address. let's get to the science of what we do about climate change? let's have a contest of ideas over solutions.

what we need to do is continue to invest in tax incentives for clean energy, for renewables, for fuels come for wind and solar community. let's continue to advance research in these areas, which we've done in congress, continue to add more money to the program that invests in research in these areas. but what will not work is policies of this president either clean power plan that risks putting 300 people in putnam county out of business and decreasing utility costs for 1.6 million across the state. what will not work as the president waters regulation that will cost another scout in between 400 million -- $2.5 billion. it will cost $31 million to fix a single ditch. what will not work as a blended fuel standard for industry can't meet and the president has to continue to delay. a renewable fuel standard that continues to increase cost to industry. the largest beer distributor in florida, great bay, just what it would also the rough.

to know why? because the return on investment is finally nfib window and it makes economic sense. they are able to grow the business, grow employment and jobs while still contributing to a cleaner and five at. that's the transition we need. 10 years ago if there was a regulation that said great bay, you have to go to all soul the roof, they would've probably had to lay off the work force because the cost without coverage. we can solve climate challenge through incentives and research, not through mandates. grayson: i think we are all for cheaper beer. >> moderator: however, and what i agree with that entirely, i myself am not a climate scientist. i am a journalist, and a very reputable journalistic magazine, national geographic, has a chart, i think we put it over here on this screen. this is what they have published

at the future outline of the state of florida in the year 2100. this isn't the water what of the ocean rises by five feet. this is what is projected. 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? try to on not one in the party will argue in the site. one of the ways we need to address that and the mayor of miami beach, a democrat is doing a debate, is our minnesota restricted underground utilities come to regulation approach, to eventually protect life, safety and property. there are a lot of things that need to be done to do with what the scientists are saying is coming. i'm happy to have that debate over where the solutions are. i will accept a signed. but does have a debate over solutions. very respectfully and i know

this come we have different disagreements on the solutions. grayson: i want to point out this is completely fortuitous that the map pages showed is something that was at my website when i declared for congress in 2006. i wanted people to see what this glorious estate would look like once the ice caps melt and once the sea level rises, and once miami is under 50 feet of water. you have a lot of trouble putting it up on stilts, talking 50 feet of water. build a good part is that rush limbaugh salsify on the coast so his house goes first. but leaving that aside it's all tragedy that is affordable. in the last eight years depression is pretty much a person posting anything about it. the president clean power plan which is now attempted be tied up in the courts by the other side, the president's clean power plan is a means to cut carbon emissions, carbon pollution substantially.

with regard to the auto emissions, who wants it to increase the corporate average fuel economy standard of this country? it wasn't a house of representatives. it wasn't the senator it wasn't the republicans were even the democrats. it was the president. and now with the presidents power climate agreement which i support and i told the president i supported, i think we see a way forward. look, i voted in favor of the so-called cap-and-trade deal in my first term. i was punished for the the arch opponents of the cap-and-trade, the koch brothers spent $4 million to defeat me the following year. i can live with that. i think the climate is a lot more important than that. >> moderator: if we can start to keep the answers the little short of that would be great. i want to go to a video. it was voted number one nationally and number three florida. it is from edward in miami, florida, so let's go to that. >> how would you make -- how you work to make renewable energy --

but potentially neighboring counties and states, our coastal tidal power could be harnessed. jolly: tax incentives that continue to create an issue that employers more people in the state of florida and gives greater energy options to people throughout the state that has cleaner renewable and cheaper. we do that through tax incentives. we can continue to invest federal dollars in research which we should. that clean power plan that we've been talking about was stayed by the supreme court because it's irreparable financial harm to state. this has been stayed by a court because the president has imposed irreparable harm on stage. my point december the let's reach consensus on this. let's solve this as a country and get out of this mandate world that is destroying communities. grayson: look, unfortunately public life there are people who are anti-bush people who are pro-pollution. that's just a fact.

i'm suggesting to you that the people, through one of the policies today, the same way wall street determines our economic policies, the same way the military and a cigar box determines our foreign policy, it's a fact that big oil determines our energy policy and that has to change. it must change. what are we doing about it? i pass more amendments than any other member of congress in the past three years. there are 26 bills battle of the land passed by the house, by the senate, signed into law by the president or than any other member of congress. for of those what i discussed earlier. the fact that we have $2.6 billion in energy credit for conservations in people's homes to make on screen that would not have existed if these bills have lapsed and if they had not been passed the so that's what i'm doing. that's what i've done. people can count on me. i think we have to take it a step further. in florida it is technically illegal for you to put solar panels on your rope and saw that

electricity to the electricity company. nobody has any idea what it is there. we have to eliminate that law. >> moderator: next question is from someone who's live in the studio. >> politicians all over the country are getting between a woman and her doctor 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. and so for me it's 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 shutting. i understand it's a very personal issue, a very human issue. i will tell you even the supreme

court in its landmark case 40 years ago recognize the viability of the unborn as a test. when they put certain restrictions on it. so for me i believe life begins at conception. for others it might be later but i will tell you the supreme court and congress eventually possibly will have to do with the fact that 40 years after the viability standard was created, a viability has changed as a result of medical science. grayson: i believe quite simply that the most important right you have as a human being is the right to control your own body. and that includes terminating a pregnancy if that's what you so desire. i don't think there should be any shame in that. i think there should everything be a shame and the concept that can force a woman to have a child that woman does not want to have. to me that itself is criminal. and, therefore, on the other things i have opposed every effort i is congress to try to restrict a woman's right to choose. i have proudly opened the planned parenthood clinic in my

district and face down protesters. and i have with some degree of pride actually attended planned parenthood fundraisers and contributed to the. i think it's important women between with the same rights as men. and believe me, if men could have abortions you could probably get them out of slot machines. >> moderator: enemy was the person who asked that question. she was there in person. next we have the founder of orlando -- will ask a question of a half of one of the people who got voted out. >> i have a question from samantha from pembroke massachusetts and she asked him she's as planned parenthood is under fire for dr. duffy it is to prove no crime or wrongdoing. do you support defending or defunding planned parenthood? grayson: defend. tried to i would say two things and i will keep it brief.

when the figures came out they were shocking. my side of the aisle quickly rushed to offer a piece of piecf legislation to define the plan ended but in the process would have reduced medical care to individuals that the country and underserved committees. it's the jolly language. i introduced paperless and we're going to disqualify planned. it as a vendor but we're going to continue to fund women's health care services at the top level funding that it has been at. the other thin thing thing i wos demise of the aisle asked for an investigation of planned parenthood i voted no. i was the only republican to vote no. should the issue be looked at? yes, but there are already three committees look at the issue. we didn't need a fourth. we will either be the party of less government or we are not. i did vote no against planned parenthood investigation >> moderator: you voted no in that case what we've had 12 investigations at the state level.

they've all said the video was doctored and there's nothing illegal whatsoever. but yet you voted to defund planned parenthood. if we know there's nothing wrong with the video why vote that way? try to i voted against the investigation because i think that investigation has run its case -- course. i don't think my party should revisit this issue. we can continue to assess whether there was a violation. i can be done without a special congressional committee. what my legislation would have done is pending the investigation, disqualified planned parenthood as a vendor but continue to provide the maximum level of resources for other providers of those -- >> moderator: why defund planned parenthood? jolly: did you see the video? >> moderator: i thought but investigators saw it in said it was doctored. that's what i am asking. so you don't agree with those investigations?

that there was nothing wrong that planned parenthood had done, they had not sold any body parts. jolly: i don't know the outcome of 12 different investigations. it could've been settled with a single investigation which is why i voted against the special committee. turn one i think it's fair to say millions of americans found the practice quite horrific. >> moderator: let me address that. tweet me afterwards. grayson: give me a minute here. that's what jewish people like me refer to as a blood libel. that it takes the way peoples rational judgment. all i can do is stir up hatred and demonize people. respectively, that's what you just did. that is not the appropriate way to discuss what planned parenthood is doing is simply inciting people to hatred. god bless them, barack obama, whatever you may say about them,

he never indulges in that, neither do i. let's try to respect each other and not say someone is selling baby parts of the mexicans are already this or any other lie like that that is meant to make people hate other people. traffic respectful was merely the prophecy of the video were based upon, that was the context and that is something that i am making a ruling on. as did or did not have been i'm merely saying that context of videos cost coverage because that was how they were sold. >> it would be a violation great of revenue line based on transacting in fetal parts. that wasn't the point of the initial investigation. >> moderator: i do not claim to be an expert in these videos were in these investigations. >> let me end on this note. just for the records of everybody at home knows, of the 12 investigations at state level a lot of them are conducted by republicans and one in harris

county did indict to people that the people of planned parenthood but the one who made the videos. said that is the only indictment that if ever come out of that, just so we're clear. according to the 12 states, no selling of body parts whatsoever and don't people ever indicted with the people who made the videos. >> moderator: now let's move forward to the next question. so the next question comes from james in arkansas. this question is asked and then every hot topic right now, the supreme court. do you believe president obama supreme court pick should have a hearing before the president leaves office? grayson: the answer is yes. there is a house resolution to that effect. i am cosponsoring a house resolution. it's, under the original constitution, americans were considered to be three this of the human being. now our first african-american president only get seven-eighths

of one triggered heated able to appoint people in the supreme court and any other position as part of his prerogative as president until his very last day in office. try to the president has article ii authority to appoint. the senate as article one of 42 accept or reject. i end up in the same place but it gets a different way. i think the tiny senate should have a hearing aid even consider a vote, and understand this. rejecting the nominee because he is wrong on the second amendment and he is wrong on labor unions as not obstructionism. it's the proper exercise of us in this article one of 40. if they bring it up for a vote, vote him down to ask the president to nominate a second person, one that could meet approval of republicans in the united states senate because what the president has to accept is republicans currently control the united states senate agenda constitutional prerogative to vote to nominate up within. i do think he should have a hearing and i would like to say about because i think he would

be voted down. >> moderator: if you were serving as a senator for the state afloat would you meet with merrick garland? jolly: of course. grayson: yes. >> moderator: let me follow-up. merrick garland has voted in favor of citizens united. his advocates would say he had no choice, he was following supreme court precedent. he also voted against habeas corpus rights. on those issues not very progressive. if the democrat won the election would you ask, and you wonder seek in which as president obama to end his nomination, the next democratic president in a different supreme court nominee? treble in the unfortunate event that his nomination is pending the answer is yes, but i want to point out that i think it's fundamentally unfair to garlic that every other nominee to say in most cases where we on this issue, where we on this issue, where we on this other issue?

you yourself pointed out that once the screen bring -- supreme court decided since it denied, that awful day when i was in the courtroom, mitch mcconnell two seats to my left, that with the law of the land until they decide otherwise. i'm pleased for members of the supreme court have said they will overturn citizens united with a fifth vote. i would ask the president to make a recess appointed to make that happen. the president decided not to. he went to the normal nomination process. i want to see those bad laws changed as quickly as possible. but you can't curse the man for simply following president. that seems unfair to him and to justice. >> moderator: let's move onto the next question about minimum wage. it comes from kissimmee, florida. now, it is about the minimum wage. are you for a minimum-wage increase on the federal level?

if so would you bring up to the poverty level for $15 per hour? if so would you bring up -- that's the same question. if instead you position the incremental how long until you would make it $15 an hour? try to look, i'm for getting people off of minimum-wage. state of florida has an $8.5 minimum wage is higher than the federal level. it is indexed annually and i would be willing to have a consideration as to whether not to index a minimum-wage at the federal level to offer superb of financial planning by employers. here's the important thing. if you went to the $10.10 level, cbo nonpartisan congressional budget office says would have 500,000 fewer jobs. edgewood to hillary clinton proposal of 12 you would have 3.8 million fewer jobs. if you want to bernie sanders proposal you have over 6 million fewer jobs. so how do we get people off minimum wage and in a growing economy? we do that through more conservative proposals.

i would consider an index at the federal level but an arbitrary list that would kill jobs for the bottom 4% of the workforce. it would be felt by the people who need the jobs most. i was a small business owner. i went through eight months one time where i didn't pay myself because i wanted to keep my employees employed. if the government had told arbitrarily you have to raise your employees of salaries by 30%, i already wasn't paying myself. my only option would have been to lay people off into unemployed people in the name of a minimum-wage hike. grayson: first let me point out a few things. there are parts of the country that have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. they generally have lower unemployment and a higher an opponent that congressman jolly is describing. we live in a metro area. tried to explain to the person in iowa why $15 is a wage

employers should be able to to sustain. grayson: let me continue. let me tell you why. if you can't let it out josie living on a minimum-wage by no means trying to survive on $1400 a month. excuse me but no one can survive on $1400 a month. i went through a minimum-wage challenge them tried to do for a few days. i ended up dropping it because i had to take my son to the dentist and so much for the minimum-wage challenge. it's impossible to get any kind of health bill come any kind of car repair bill, anything that might throw you off track of eating nothing but ramen noodles everyday for the rest of your life. look, this is america. in australia they have $16 an hour minimum wage from in australia. they found a booming economy for years and unemployment has been less than ours for the 10 years. if they can do it than we can do. the same thing is true across the board in germany i law and

the worker gets for weeks plus of paid vacation. you haven't seen the german economy collapsed because of that. there's only three countries in the entire world where there's no paid vacation bible. we have to be one of them and the other to happen to be in africa. we are treating our workers like a dirt. out of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the entire country, our land of his dead last in wages. the same way that seniors deserve a raise, workers deserve a raise. we need to compensate those people who doing the work that makes everything possible. couldn't be in this duty today, couldn't be standing behind his lectern and let somebody made this studio, made his lectern. they deserve more than $1400 a month. >> moderator: one last follow-up is there another we can go back to the person who asked the squish and say here's the minimum-wage you think is ideal that you would like to get to? jolly: just like on climate

change, there's very few economists as well. so why do lawmakers arbitrarily choosing never? that's what i say let's index at the let's get the brightest light in the world, in the room to index into the politicians out of the. it works in states across the country including florida that have a higher minimum wage and it is indexed so employers can plan for the increased wages of the next year. grayson: i was an economist for four years. is for i know the only one in the house back at that's what i can go to the economic data and to the argued against men wage are false, misleading. they don't get is a real fact of the matter. the fact is if you get people a 15-dollar minimum wage would be more customers. that's what business is what. they don't want to force their employees to rely on food stamps or medicare. with a bit of what is customers. you put $15 an hour in people's

hands, they will spend it, the whole economy gets elevated track of how does someone in my situation call an employee in and say, i'm sorry, i have to let you go? because the government has just about to give you a 30% raise that have already not paying myself and the are not funds to keep you employed. you can study the economics all you want but impact on job losses is real. if the small business is the hardest. grayson: before i took up the cause of the $15 minimum wage i met with people in tampa who were making the minimum wage in florida. i asked everyone of them the question that congressman jolly just passed or are you willing to run the risk you might lose your job so that people can have $15 minimum wage? every single one answered yes, even though they knew they might be the one. and, frankly, with an economy like germany has come you would never have to worry about that.

jolly: what's keeping you from raising it to $70 an hour? grayson: there is a value of people's labor and $50 -- $15 an hour or more. we subsidize it to make it seem less than that. the only way people survive winter making $8, $9 now is because the government subsidizes it. wal-mart is the largest welfare recipient in this entire country. look at the amount of money they get to the employee benefits for the earned income tax credit, their medicaid coverage. the food stamp and every other form of benefits that they get it, this is subsidizing that pay. if you're making $15 an hour that taxpayers would be better off. >> moderator: haiti from california has a question that was voted on very enthusiastically and seems like a lot of people are very interested in is not a video question. he asks what are your plan to do with out of control college tuition and student debt? just a few numbers here, especially because we are in florida and running for the

senate seat in florida. over half of floridians students carry student debt when they graduate. the total amount of student debt and vote exceeds $1 billion. florida has doubled the national average of student debt loans in default. the average floridian owes north of $26,000 in student debt which ranks the fifth highest in the country. how do you combat this problem? jolly: 41 million americans have student loan debt come next and mortgages it's the greatest debt burden on individuals and families. there's some simple things we can do by allowing student loans to be refinanced by making them eligible for reorganization and bankruptcy cases. those are two initiatives i supported. creating flexibility for accelerating pell grants, need-based income consider if we can find what for expanded pell grant. the real way to do this, let's

tie the performance of long-term student loans to what universities receive. understand you can rack up $100,000 in debt and the day after graduation the university has been paid but you might struggle for decades. right now the only trigger on a university that invokes any type of penalty is if the default rate of the graduate students which is about 18%. i think we should go back to the system where the university is remembered based on the performance of the long term loan. grayson: well, i've introduced the act that put everything that congressman jolly just described. it also beyond that makes public college free. there are seven other countries around the world where public colleges pay free, and are taught in english. talk in slovenia afford to provide public college in english, where florida, california and new york and iowa

and new hampshire somehow can't. if you look at what is being spent in a system it is the drop in the bucket. the entire college system for the state of florida is a tiny fraction of the state's overall budget. we have the federal government provided a very substantial part of a k-12 cost of education. why do we stop the? is not a new idea. free public college dates back to the 1840s. my father went to the city college of new york, a free college. there's a reason why we can't make that same promise to everyone else. as indicated before, you want people to reach their potential in life. every single one of us is a unique bundle of talents, skills, interests, limitations. and i want to see the truck drivers who are willing and able to become doctors become doctors. i want to make sure that everybody breaches their full potential. and in our 21st century economy that often requires a college education.

i so let's open up the public colleges to everyone try to that's a state decision because the state and that taxpayers decide to provide that for students, then that's left to the states to decide i don't think the federal government should be telling florida you have to give free college. if the voters in florida wanted in the administrators of the state university system and decide how to pay for and that taxpayers would have to accept it. i don't think there's a role for a date congress. >> moderator: let's move onto the next question about for profit prisons. black americans have been persecuted and ambitiously, being mistreated in our present or private present arthur. if elected wil will be the suppt abolishing private prisons? grayson: the answer is yes. what is government? one way to look at what the government is, is the government holds a monopoly on the

legitimacy use of force when we talking about killing foreign soldiers were talking about the police arresting anyone or talk about judgment in court, a money judgment being enforced by garnishment. over the matter talk about imprisoning someone. the core function of government is about. so it makes no sense whatsoever to contract it out. it is fundamentally irresponsible to say to someone we will let you make about often crushed somebody else. and it delegitimizes the entire system to the reason why prison guards do what they do and it's a difficult, dirty job, a horrible job to have, the reason why they can do what they do is because they stand in the place of you and me. they stand in the place of the entire u.s., all citizens altogether having to make these decisions to the justice system collectively. once you start to see the people we will keep you an extra dollar if you cut back on the rations

or you put three or four prisoners that they felt instead of only two, you have corrupted the system and a fundamental way. we cannot allow that. jolly: i think privatization is an issue for elected leadership to decide if that's the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. the question is the administradministr ation of prisons but regardless if it's public or private. is it being done was possibly? if someone violating the law and the way they're administrating a present then they should be held responsible. i had a very different the make mistakes and he ended up spending time in a state prison in florida. he faced significant health care challenges that i don't believe were being responded to adequately. i don't know it was a private or public prison. to me it didn't matter. the issue was that the administration was failing, and so should we wholesale or have a privatization? i do know. perhaps the are areas where that is working for taxpayers but the bottom line is that if someone

is filing the law they should be held accountable. >> you mentioned, i think that's why but it doesn't stop there. 23% of african-american adults in florida can't vote because the rights have not been restored. it's the highest proportion in the entire country. we have do not only treat prisoners as if they are human beings and not profit centers with a profit motive but we have to understand when they serve their time, it's time to let it go and have them rejoin the family of american citizens with full rights. >> moderator: congressman jolly this been studies showing private prisons are not really cost savers. in arizona they cost $1600 more per inmate per year. but to me the larger question i think it is not just the effects it has and the cost that it has, but the fact that we incentivize some companies to take away the

freedoms of some americans. isn't there something inherently problematic without? granted that is wrong and legislative should be held accountable if there is a model that saves taxpayer dollars and does appropriately administered a prison system. if there's one that works and we should not preclude it. >> moderator: we will go to voting rights next. what we do to improve voting not just afford but nationwide? we continue to see the effects of voter suppression wreak havoc in this country. but we do to improve voting -- there it is again. i would like to see open primaries everywhere, federal voting, holiday and all the voter registry at 18 years of age. >> not just a florida but nationwide. we continue to see the effects on voter suppression wreak havoc in this country. i personally would like to see

open primaries, national federal funding hold an automatic voter registration at 18 years of age. >> moderator: let's start with congressman jolly. if you can be specific on his ideas over primaries, federal voting. jolly: i think it's a great solution from open primaries. we should have them in florida. you've got a third of the electorate who are disenfranchised from voting in primaries. frankly, i think republicans should embrace this because we can grow the party by embracing custom solutions that appeal to independents and those are no party affiliation. i would say yes to open primaries. on the other issues i was whatever makes voting more accessible, most accessible with greater participation i would be willing to consider that. grayson: first i've introduced legislation for this purpose because i indicated before i introduce her bills and any other member of the introduced the bill for democracy day that makes our federal elections a federal holiday, gives people an opportunity to vote.

we have a lot of people in my district who have one job, maybe two jobs can sometimes even three jobs and work on tuesdays. it makes it hard for them to vote. another thing i'm in favor of is, the same thing in colorado where they mail every single voter a ballot. you can use it or go and vote on election day. i think that is elevated turnout just as it has in oregon which has mail ballot only. i think wicked this accept the fundamental idea that it is on the wrong for the government to do anything to frustrate the right to vote i favor a constitutional amendment that declares the right to vote. i introduce legislation that would ensure that when you have served your time, apart from cases of murder or manslaughter or sex crimes, when you insert your time you get back to rights. in florida we are first class citizecitizens and second-class citizens and that's just wrong. when you serve your time and you paid your debt to society you

should be able to vote and protect yourself from the political system and at the same rights as everybody else. >> moderator: do you find any problems with voter id laws if they disenfranchised significant percentage of some folks in the country? jolly: then let's do better and let's make voting as easy as accessible for anybody who legally and responsibly wants to do so. >> moderator: i think we don't have time for another questions we've go to closing statements. congressman grayson is going to go first. grayson: thank you. i'm delighted to have this opportunity to address the issues of the day. you will notice that choice is paper versus plastic never came up with the choice of diet coke versus coke zero never came up and he was a big debate in my hostel. i am just happy that find of the american people it is you what it's like that to serious members of congress -- struggle with the great issues of the day. this is what it's all about but this is the way politics ought

to be. should be talking about how much we sweat or how big our fingers may be. that's -- [laughter] trevi on the issue we have not done you just as. it is awfully hot in here. grayson: but look it comes back to what i said to we are both struggling with this issue but the issue is rising inequality in the country. we want people to be able to be all they can as this at the beginning but with economic inequality, social inequality. people are struggling to remain in the middle class. they are falling out of the middle class. the question is whether you talk about student loans or social security, whatever it may be, what i going to do about it? what i going to do to fix it? what have you done to fix it? my organization have an award they give out every year. they give it to the person has done the most for seniors and that's called the claude pepper a worker i want to win the award

one day. i want to be the same champion the claude pepper was in the state of florida for an entire generation or more. that's what florida needs, champion for seniors, a champion for workers, a champion for you. jolly: thank you and thank you to the open debate coalition to get this working here. i think because of the lights. every single day i titled it on the line. i leave it all on the field. when i opened up this debate i said i've been fighting for florida for two years to come asking for the opportunity to continue to do it again. when our veterans need better health care, let's give them the choice of where the receiver. with our seniors don't have an increase, the fight to get it. when we have children who are ready for school let's invest in student -- making ged more affordable come accessible for people who want it. and yes when the president is wrong on issues of national

security and on over regulation that is reducing services and this crippling an economy in parts of florida that needed the most, let's stand up and say there's a better way to do it. i started by talking about the stop act. there's probably no better reform and we can do right now, get congress back to work. congress of ideas we've had tonight is what we should be doing as candidates and members of congress. it's what i introduce the stop act. that's why we have the stop act.com to as people to join us in the movement more than a campaign. i thank you for tuning in. i think the open debate coalition and i think the 20 participating tonight. this is but a great night. allen, thank you. >> moderator: okay. thank you, guys. thank you so very much with so much we didn't get a chance to get you but that just proves the strength of the debate and strength of these questions. i wanted to thank both congressmen for being here. the open debate coalition, our partners, americans for tax reform and progressive change

institute, ever everybody who submitted questions, and for the nearly half a million votes we got to decide which questions were answered. so thank you so much, and for the public that followed a long. >> if you like to ask questions going forward, we can do this at the presidential level and congressional of all throughout the country that in order to do they get to impress the representatives that this is the right way. you do this by getting her family and friends to watch. if you're on facebook, share it, like it. otherwise go to florida open debate.com and make sure everybody gets the word on this. so congressman, thank you so much. for all of you at home watching, thank you as well. ♪ ♪

♪ >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> the u.s. senate resumes work to do on the first of the nearly one dozen spending bills for 2017, more than $37.5 billion

for energy and water projects across the country, an attempt to advance the bill failed. the white house has threatened the bill veto if the provision is at it. now live to the floor of the u.s. senate. on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, you are in the midst of us, and we are called your children. we confess that we often fail to live worthy of your great name and generous mercies. we thank you for the