ms. bordallo? >> [inaudible] >> ms. bordallo? ms. bordallo votes no. mr. rogers? >> no. >> mr.ogers votes no. >> mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtney votes no. mr. franks? >> no. >> mr. franks votes no. mr. loebsack? >> no. >> mr. loebsack votes no. mr. schuster? >> no. >> mr. schuster votes no. ms. son gas? >> aye. >> ms. tsongas votes aye. mr. conaway? >> no. >> >> mr. land bourne votes no. mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. whitman? >> mr. whitman votes no. mr. hunter? >> no. >> mr. hunter votes no. ms. spear? ms. spear votes aye. dr. fleming? >> no. >> dr. fleming votes no. mr. barber? >> no. >> mr. barber votes no. mr. coffman? >> no. >> mr. coffman votes no. mr. carson? is. >>. no. >> mr. carson votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> ms. shea-porter? >> no. >> ms. shea-porter votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. [applause] hartsler? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler voted no. mr. kilmer? >> no. >> mr. kilmer votes no. dr. heck? >> no. >> dr. heck votes no. mr. castro? >> no. >> mr. castro votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. runyon votes no. ms.

ms. bordallo? >> no. >> ms. bordallo votes no. mr. rogers? >> no. >> mr. rogers votes no. mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtny votes no. mr. franks? >> no. mr. franks votes no. mr. loebsack? is. >> no. mr. loebsack votes no. mr. zeuser? >> no. mr. schuster votes no. ms. tongas? >> aye. >> ms. tsongas votes aye. >> mr. conaway? >> no. >> mr. conaway votes no. mr. land born? >> no. >> mr. lanborn votes no. mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. hunter? >> no. >> mr. hunter votes no. ms. spear? >> [inaudible] >> ms. spear votes aye. >> dr. fleming? >> no. >> dr. fleming votes no. mr. barber? >> no. >> mr. barber votes no. mr. coffman? >> no. >> mr. coffman votes no. mr. carson? >> [inaudible] >> mr. carson votes no. >> ms. shea-porter? >> no. >> ms. shea-porter votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. >> mr. ma thai? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler votes no. dr. hecht? >> no. >> dr. hecht votes no. mr. castro? >> no. >> mr. castro votes no. mr. runyon? >> no. >> mr. runyon votes no. ms. duckworth? >> aye. >> mr. scott? >> no. >> mr. scott votes no. m

ms. bordallo: i want to -- say the jo set i have enjoyed working with mr. wittman and chair of the full committee, mr. mckeon and mr. adam smith. i thank the committee and professional staff for the many long hours that they have put into getting this bill ready. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1960. this bill works to ensure that our men and women in uniform are well trained and equipped to defend our nation and its allies. although this bill represents the hard work and efforts of both the majority and minority, i want to highlight the need to resolve sequestration. i hope that this congress undertakes serious efforts to finally fix sequestration with a comprehensive solution. we can avoid this problem. i would like to highlight a few important readiness issues. the bill provides a one-year extension of authority for certain pay and benefits to civilian personnel who are forward deployed, performing critical frations overseas and in combat zones. we are requiring g.a.o. to look into how the furloughs of civilian are being implemented by the department of

ms. bordallo mentioned in her comments. while this mark prohibits a brac for this year, i believe for the next couple of years, and though i disagree with that i won't oppose that decision. but it goes even further than that. it prohibits the department of defense from planning for proposing an additional brac round. and that's just bad legislation. i mean, the executive branch, has its role. the legislative branch has its role. if the executive branch wishes to propose something, you can oppose it. we can have a debate and discuss about it but to go so far in our mark as to prohibit the department of defense, planning or proposing an additional back -- brac doesn't make any sense to me. i think the remaining republicans on -- are very critical of the department of defense for not playing for sequestration just saying we don't think it's going to happen so when it went to plan for it. it's a pretty fair criticism. you've got to plan for what's coming, and to say that they can't plan or propose the future i think is an unnec

ms. bordallo request time. >> thank you very much.ices while simplifying logistic requirements. in 2002 the us military use only two different camouflage uniforms one for wooded jungle terrain and one for desert terrain. today, among the four armed services there are 10 different camouflage uniforms with more in development. a recent "washington post" article noted that over the past 12 years the four military services have spent more than $10 million just on the development and testing of new camouflage uniforms. hundreds of millions more were spent procuring new uniforms and all the required matching personnel equipment from ammunition vests to helmet covers to body armor carriers. the army despite having two new army uniforms in the past 10 years is working on yet another design. in a recent report the gao estimated that the army alone could save $82 million if that partnered with another service to have a common uniform rather than another service specific one. it is for these reasons that i am in support of this amendment this am

bordallo -- aye. mr. frank -- aye. mr. schuster -- aye. mr. conaway -- aye. garamendi -- no. mr. johnson -- aye. mr. whitman -- aye. mr. hunter -- aye. ms. spear -- no. dr. fleming -- aye. mr. barber -- aye. mr. kaufman -- aye. mr. carson -- aye. ms. shea porter -- aye. mrs. hartzler -- aye. mr. kilmer -- aye. -- aye.ro duckworth -- aye. mr. palazzo -- aye. mrs. robie -- aye. -- aye.ks veasey -- aye. mr. nugent -- aye. mr. cook -- aye. mr. wenstrup -- aye. mr. jones, mr. jones. >> the bill passed, right? >> that is correct, sir. >> the motion is agreed to. it is laid upon the table. for what purposes the gentleman from washington seek recognition. >> i would like to assert the right of any member to file an alert for inclusion into the house on the bill just ordered reported. >> pursuant to clause 2l, all members are committed to not less than two calendar days. fork unanimous consent clerical changes be removed from the bill on provisions that would cause the beer bill -- bill or end in an earmark. i ask unanimous consent that the chairman the authorized to make such notions as are to go to conference with us. without objection, so ordered. finally, i w