can we go back to mendy's? i'll take you to mendy's. i want to go twice.e reasonable, bania. i'm taking you out for a nice dinner. that's a good deal. two mendy's. all right. just give me the ticket. here. but, mr. steinbrenner, how can i be expected to perform my job properly knowing that my subordinate is making more money than i am? with all due respect, it's out of whack. i know what it's like to be financially strapped. as a young man in cleveland, i hitchhiked to work. once, i got picked up by a bakery truck. try being cooped up in one of those babies. i couldn't look at a doughnut for two years, not that i was ever one for the sweets. sure, i like cupcakes like everybody else. i like it when they have a little cream inside. the chocolate ones are good, too. sometimes i can't make up my mind, and i'll mix them. let me in. here. you don't know what this is costing me. all right. nice work. where's uma's number? the moisturizer smudged out the phone number. the dry-cleaning number's gone, too. it must have been the botanical extracts. give me that. hey

gare why mendy: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, my colleague on both the rules committee and the armed services committee, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from florida yielding. i owe you one more. this is an impeccably good rule. it made in order 172 amendments. which makes someone wonder why we have committees in the first place. i wish to illustrate or bring to light three of those particular amendments. so they are not overlooked in the rhetoric that we have going here today because each does have an impact on the readiness taking place. the first one is one by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, which would ask the agencies of this government to communicate with the military when something would impact the military. in this case beyond the decision which we have a great deal of impact o

gare mendy -- mr. garamendi is recognized. >> for the last 16 hours or so we've been doing we v -- doing very, very important work, generally spending well over $16 billion, maybe $100 billion if we were to account all the expenditures in afghanistan and related things that will happen not in our budget but the c.i.a. and state department and the rest. . basically we've refused to make decisions, the tough decisions about what money was actually available to us. and so we spent. i talk about $2.6 billion for the afghanistan air force which really doesn't exist, nuclear weapons here and there, anti-missile systems that don't work in places that are not needed, on and on and on. and then we come back to the last of this and say oh, my god, we've got sequestration, yes, we do. but we managed to build quite an empire of spending here. actually, well beyond what the administration wanted. and we didn't spend one moment talking about the war in afghanistan and the $80 billion scheduled to be spent there. you