mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i have enormous respect for mr. fleming -- >> [inaudible] gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> i have enormous respect for mr. fellowing and for many of the groups he says have looked over this, and i know that they have said exactly what he says. but i also glee with you that i hope we can massage this wording, because i think that this worded is problematic. when you start saying that word "accommodate," it may do some things that we really don't want it to do. so i just encourage the chairman to work with mr. fleming as we go to full markup and perhaps do a little bit better job of massaging these words so that we can make it accomplish the purpose he wants it to do but not push it too far back. and with that, mr. speaker -- i mean, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> would you be comfortable, doctor, with pulling this at in this time and working on that language for the full committee? >> mr. chair -- >> or do you want? >> i would prefer to move forward. >> you want to move forward. okay. the question is on the

mr. forbes, for any comments that he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman.his year the seapower and projection forces subcommittee has worked diligently and a bipartisan manner to prepare a market that is before the committee. however, we cannot have been successful without your leadership, the work of our subcommittee ranking member, mike mcintyre, and the dedication and commitment to excellence of the committee staff. the public never fully understands or appreciates the contributions of our staff, but we do it and today we offer them our thanks. i want to highlight some of the key issues that we discussed for consideration in our market. first i continue to be concerned about both sides and constitution of our navy sleet. in the 30 years shipbuilding plan the ministry has indicated a requirement 306 ships. the independent bipartisan 2010 qdr independent panel indicated a requirement 346 ships. unfortunately, the secretary of the navy has proposed a reduction of the fleet for 270 ships and just the next year. berries outside experts have indicated that if

mr. forbes. >> mr.record, we did put in the budget last year and in the authorization of the money necessary to do the modernization and operate these vessels were to in years. the question comes down to very simply this, what size needy do you want to meet these needs? the statistic that ought to steer you in the eye is the fact that in 2007 we met 90% of the combat commanders requirement. this year we will need 50%. and as mr. wittman pointed out, if you want and need to continue on the line that we are going, then vote for this amendment and we will take that out. but if we need them down the road, somebody's going to come back to this night and say why did we make such a foolish mistake as to the tearing apart and dismantle ships that had ten to 15 years of life left within them. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the gentleman yields back. when the pay, commander was here testifying before the committee, in discussing the switch and strategy where the president says he wants to switch to a spec

mr. mcintyre -- no, -- forbes -- no, mr. brady mr. mr. miller -- no, --rews -- aye, mr. wilson aye, mr.davis -- lobiondo votes no. aye.launch event votes i mr. bishop-- no. mr. larson -- aye. mr. turner -- no. mr. cooper -- aye/ . mr. klein -- no. -- no.ers mr. courtney -- aye. mr. frank -- no. aye.ove sac -- mr. schuster -- no. no conaway -- aye.uerra monday - mr. johnson -- aye. mr. whitman -- no. -- no.ter mrs. spear -- aye. -- notes.g o. mr. kaufman -- present. aye.arson -- ms. shea porter -- no. mr. gibson -- no. pass.veigh -- mrs. hartzler -- no. dr. hecht -- no. mr. castro -- aye. mr. runyon -- no. mrs. duckworth -- aye. mr. scott -- no. mr. peters -- aye. no.botto -- yeurt -- aye. mrs. robie -- no. mr. brooks -- no. aye.c -- mr. nugent -- no. mr. cook -- no. mr. brightens time -- no. dr. winthrop -- no. mularski -- no. mr. mcveigh -- no. r. jones -- mr. kaufman -- no. how was mr. lamborn recorded? >> as a no. desires to change their vote? we have three hours. the amendment is not agreed to. the question now occurs from the amendment offered by mr. cooper or which

forbes on fox. let's go in focus with mr. steve forbes, ricking unger, richard karl guard, elizabeth mcdonald

forbes on fox. let's go in focus with mr. steve forbes, ricking unger, richard karl guard, elizabeth mcdonald and john tandy. steve, first, is this the solution everybody's been looking for? >> absolutely. getting free markets in health care is the only way to go, doing away with the disconnect between providers and consumers we don't have free markets today. if we did, you'd get productivity, turn very expensive procedures today into more common place things tomorrow. so this is it a good start. it can start with simple routine things an go right up to the most sophisticated surgery. when patients are in charge, it's their money, by golly you get real bargains, including lasik surgery costs less today than it did ten years ago. why? because there's not that disconnect between providers and consumers. >> it's not just the patients. when patients and doctors together go around looking for bargains, that's what brings down the prices, rick unger. i'm looking at some of his menu here, if you will, of what he offers, an office vis

mr. forbes: thank you. mr. chairman, on may 28, 2010, i stood on this floor and made a motion that effectively stopped some of the worst terrorists in the world at guantanamo bay from being transferred to the united states. at that particular point in time the then chairman of the armed services committee, democrat ike skelton, stood on the floor and said this, we are in a position to accept this motion. i just wish to point out that there is no difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. today we step on a course with this amendment to change that as the highest ranking democrat on the armed services committee seeks to overturn essentially that motion. mr. chairman, if the gentleman was asking that these terrorists be brought to his district that would be one thing. he knows that's very unlikely. and what you are having with this motion is very generously saying they could be brought to any of our districts. we are hearing a uniformed core stand up from north carol

mr. forbes. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: with chairman mckeon's and ranking member smith's leadership, i believe this provides the right authorities to represent our resounding and unequivocal support for those men and women who place their service above all things. we could all learn from their service and devotion. as for the subcommittee mark, i continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our navy's fleet. in the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the administration has indicated a requirement of 306 ships. the 2010 independent panel indicated a requirement of 346 ships. unfortunately the navy proposed a reduction of the fleet to 270 ships in just the next year. various outside experts indicated if we continue to support our current level of shipbuilding investment this efleet would be reduced further to 240 ships. if this -- this is simply unacceptable. given the budget budget cuts of the past four year which i opposed, i think this bill does a good job of reversing negative trends and takes a step in

mr. forbes: i thank the chairman and, mr. chairman, one of the things that unites republicans and democrats in opposition to this amendment, that's why you heard them take this floor, the constitution of the united states mandates congress to build a strong navy. it doesn't mandate the white house. it mandates us and we will not walk away from that mandate. and if you look at every independent analysis, every q.d.r. since 2001 says we need 11 carriers. if you really believe the navy will come in here and say they don't need them that's not true. they say the budget needs to drive the strategy and you need to cut them down and we are not going to put them in that position. you talk about cost. it could cost more to have fewer carriers because they don't talk about the deployment times we are going to put on the backs of our sailors or the maintenance costs. the second thing they don't look at in 2007 we were able to meet our needs in the navy. this year we will only meet 51% because of the cuts we placed on their backs. the pe

mr. forbes and now mr. wittman, again, we have just not been given adequate information for us to basically allow this process to go forward. we need more back from the pentagon on both, their intentions in terms of european military sites as well as a more coherent explanation of why we should anymore confidence that a brac would proceed with any more success, particularly if the goal is stated is budget reduction, deficit reduction but with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the adoption and offered by mr. smith. in favor of say aye. those opposed, no. spent in the opinion o of the chair than of the chair and knows how it. the amendment is not agree to. there has been a recorded -- that will happen at the end of this subcommittee's market. are there any other amendment to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. >> i ask unanimous consent to call off an unblocked packa

forbes. colleagues, any questions? okay, we have a budget analyst report. mr. rose, item number 4, please. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 9 of our report, ms. forbes referred to table 4 of our report where it shows the increase going from 9.95 million to [speaker not understood], increase. and as ms. forbes stated, we believe that these requested increased expenditures are reasonable. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution. >> thank you. mr. rose, as we discussed before, these were anticipated adjustments that were anticipated long time ago in the initial contract was signed? >> correct. >> thanks. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? or staff? okay, we'll open it up to public comment. anybody wish to publicly comment on item number 4, please step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can we have a motion to move item 4 forward to the full board? we can do that without opposition. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call items number 5 and 6 together? >> is that for the june 4th meeting or june 18th? >> june 4th meeting. >> th

mr. forbes is absolutely right, he got the votes, that is where the majority opinion is.ertainly in the house. is make no mistake -- it the united states house of representatives that has been making sure that one cinema bay stays open --guantanamo stays open. if this amendment were to pass, there would at least be an option to bring them to the u.s. because there is no other place that we're going to be able to set up a prison to hold the people we need to hold. as long as this band is in the legislation, we kept saying this president needs to have a plan, the president has laid out repeatedly eveready of different --ns to deal with it, repeatedly laid out different plans to deal with it. the first step to getting to that happy place is lifting a ban, giving the president the opportunity. it is pretty straightforward. it does not close guantanamo. it creates the possibility of doing it. they we would have to see what the plan was. but as long as you seem you cannot transfer it them out of there pretty -- transfer them out of there, the discussion is over at that point. >

forbes. colleagues, any questions on items 5 and 6? okay, seeing none, can we go to our budget analyst report, mr. rose. >> yes, mr. chairman, members of the committee. on page 13 in table 2 of our report, we have examined the requested $34.7 million and find those expenditures to be reasonable. on page 16 of our report, we note that the estimated debt service on the proposed bonds is $1.46 million. that's annual debt service and over the 30-year term of the bonds, the estimated principal is 24.3 million. interest is 18.9 million, nearly 19 million for total debt service of 43 million 2 66,85 4. we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions? okay, seeing none, we'll open up to public comment. anybody wish to publicly comment on items 5 or 6? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can i have a motion to move these items forward to the full board? so moved by supervisor avalos. we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 7. >> item number 7, resolution authorizing the port to acc

missrati with lord abbott and my good friend steve forbe, forbes media chairman and editor in chief will be co-hosting with me on set for the full hour. mr. fox, i'll go to you. have you seen any discernible slowdown yet because of the job in interest rates in you're in one of the hottest areas of this recovery. >> so far we have not seen a falloff in sales. sales have been robust and the economy is gaining moment up as we go on. however, we do think it's very fragile and we in the car business are subject to an interest rate increase. >> you're selling over 15 million at an annual rate nationwide. that's a pretty hefty number and it's a great jump over last year and the year before. can you hazard a guess for me. what interest rate level would it take for you to see a slowdown or a slump in these big car sales? >> well, i think it's gradual, and certainly the consumers in my area are more interest rate sensitive because our economy is more fragile. we haven't made the recovery post the great recession that other areas have. we're consistently gaining, but we're very interest rate sensitive. so in my area, i think a 2% or 3% increase in

mr. speaker, i am honored to represent the great state of utah and salt lake city. forbes magazine recently rated utah as the best state in the nation for business and careers. in salt lake city, it was recently ranked as the best city in the country for new graduates. but while the state of utah is doing very well, the rest of our nation is not. as a small business owner, i know that government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. this sinessmen all over nation are asking, no, they're even begging for one thing, get government out of the way. allow our economy to grow. create new american jobs, expand opportunities, don't expand government. there are right now 4.4 million americans that have been jobless for more than six months and this is completely unacceptable. we must simplify our tax code. we need to become energy independent. we need to move forward with projects such as the keystone pipeline. we need to reform health care and entitlement programs which account for the vast majority of our deficit and debt spending. americans deserve better. we ca