September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5917 

have a plan that, number one, gives the 

individual control over their health insurance so that you can pick a health 

insurance policy that you like even if 

the employee next to you chooses a different policy. Why should it have to be 

the same? Why should you have to 

carry insurance for acupuncture if you 

never use acupuncture? Some States 

actually mandate the coverage of acupuncture. This is why insurance costs 

so much. 

Your car insurance does not pay for 

an oil change. It does not pay for new 

tires. It does not pay for routine, small 

expenses that you can expect because 

that’s not what insurance is for. Insurance is for a catastrophic event. If you 

want your car insurance to pay for oil 

changes and new tires, it’s going to 

cost a lot of money because that’s not 

the purpose of insurance. The purpose 

of insurance is to protect you from a 

catastrophic event. 

That’s why the Health Savings Account is an important component of 

free market health care reform because 

then you have—for example, say you’re 

working for somebody; instead of paying your health insurance, your employer pays into a Health Savings Account, which is then your money to use 

for health care. And it comes to you 

tax free, so you’re not paying any taxes 

on it. It would be the same as if your 

employer was paying for a health insurance policy for you. 

So with that money, then, you could 

be paying for your routine health care 

out of that. Now, this is money in your 

account now, so you may want to 

choose how you spend that a little 

carefully because that money is in 

your Health Savings Account, that’s 

money that belongs to you now, and 

you can use that any way you want for 

your health care. Or maybe if you don’t 

even use it all, that would be there for 

you in your estate once you die for 

your children. So you want to be careful with that. 

So when you’re going to go get an 

MRI for your shoulder, you may not 

just go to the place that your doctor 

may recommend, you may shop around 

for an MRI. Because I know, for example, that at some places you can get an 

MRI for $2,500, at another place you 

can get an MRI for $600, the same MRI. 

Unless you actually kind of look 

around for it, you’re not going to be 

able to find that deal. You’re not going 

to even know about it because right 

now you don’t even care about it perhaps because your insurance pays it 

and you have a copay that doesn’t affect you. But if you’re taking this 

money out of a Health Savings Account, you’re going to be shopping 

more. That’s the power of transparency 

in cost. 

So, looking around to see where you 

can save money to keep money in your 

Health Savings Account, and then 

shopping for insurance that suits your 

needs, not the needs of the person next 

to you, but suits your needs so that 

you may choose an insurance company, 

like for your car insurance, that differs 

from our neighbor’s but suits you just 

fine. You may have Chevrolet insurance or you may have Cadillac insurance, but it’s your choice. Those are 

just two things that I think would really diminish the cost of medicine and 

not involve taking over everything by 

the government and actually decrease 

costs. 

The other thing that nobody really 

talks about much in the cost of medicine is the cost of malpractice. Malpractice is something that doctors can 

be very uncomfortable with, but sometimes injuries do occur. Is it a good result for a patient who’s been injured to 

have to go to court for 5 or 6 years and 

then have to pay fees for attorneys of 

50 to 60 percent of the judgment after 5 

or 6 years in court? Is that justice for 

an injured patient? Frankly, it’s not 

something that doctors want to see. 

Doctors want to see, if there is actually an injury, let’s have it dealt with 

in a reasonable fashion. Let’s have it 

adjudicated in an administrative law 

situation when there has been an injury. A panel of people can decide, yes, 

there has been actual injury, let’s 

make a judgment, and let’s give that 

patient a judgment, and let’s get it 

done with within several months. That 

would be better. It would eliminate the 

entire cost of a trial, the attorney fees 

and all that, and physicians would like 

it. Patients would like it, I think, because it would give them speedier access to justice. I think that by doing 

that we would eliminate a lot of the 

extra costs that come into medicine. 

Right now, if you come into the 

emergency room for something, a pain 

in your belly, you’re going to get a 

CAT scan pretty much automatically 

because the doctor is afraid of being 

sued. And it doesn’t cost him anything, 

it doesn’t cost the patient anything, 

he’s going to order a CAT scan, he’s 

going to order the x-ray, he’s going to 

order a lot of tests just to protect himself. These are some of the hidden costs 

of malpractice that people don’t really 

think about. They just think about the 

cost of malpractice as simply the cost 

of the doctor’s insurance, which can be 

expensive. 

Right now, different States will have 

different abilities to attract physicians 

because they have different means of 

dealing with malpractice. But I think 

that for the patient, really, we need to 

have a better system where they get 

compensated faster and with less aggravation than the system we have 

now. 

So, I think the main thing that we’re 

talking about on this side, we talk 

about health care reform, is to talk 

about having a conversation with the 

American people. Maybe you don’t 

agree with some of these ideas on how 

to make our health care system better 

and more efficient. Well, I can understand that. Let’s have a conversation. 

Let’s decide how we can do it better. 

Let’s try a pilot program in one 

State. Let’s allow States to experiment 

in how to do things. Let’s not write a 

bill of 2,700 pages in the middle of the 

night that nobody read and then put it 

on the American people and say it’s 

going to be great, but we don’t know 

what’s in it because we haven’t read it, 

and then go through the next 21⁄2 years 

realizing that it’s a mistake. I mean, 

there definitely needs to be room for 

improvement in our system, but can’t 

we have this conversation in an open 

fashion? I think a lot of people even on 

the other side would realize that, hey, 

we made a mistake, but isn’t it more 

important to admit that we made a 

mistake and try to move forward in a 

fashion that actually cuts cost? We see 

it’s not cutting costs. It’s been devastating to the American economy. 

I’ve talked to small business owners 

across my district over the past 2 years 

and they say the same things again and 

again: There’s regulations cost us 

money and our health care cost us 

money; it’s going to make us not be 

able to hire more people. 

So I think we’ve made some real mistakes here in the past, but now is the 

time to address them and move forward 

and try to make some commonsense 

decisions. Frankly, I’m happy to hear 

from people with ideas. I hear ideas 

from people all the time in the district 

that really make some sense and are 

certainly worth trying out. 

So with that, I want to thank the 

members of the Physicians Caucus that 

were here this evening for our evening 

hour, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

f 

PROTECT AMERICA 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) 

for 30 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I want to yield to my doctor 

friend from Texas, a former student of 

Texas A&M University, as myself, a 

guy who, as a junior in college when I 

was a senior in college, helped tutor me 

to make a 98 on the final exam of our 

accounting course. I yield such time as 

he may consume to my friend from 

Texas (Mr. FLORES). 

RECOGNIZING AMERICAN HERO BRIAN BACHMANN

AND ALL FIRST RESPONDERS ACROSS AMERICA

Mr. FLORES. I would like to thank 

my friend from Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) 

for allowing me a few minutes of his 

time. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 

an American hero, Brian Bachmann, 

who served as Precinct 1 Constable of 

Brazos County, Texas, who was killed 

in the line of duty on August 13, 2012. 

Also, with yesterday being the 11th anniversary of 9/11, I also want to recognize first responders all across our 

country. 

As I began to write my reflections for 

this conversation, which I originally 

delivered on August 18, the words that 

kept coming to mind to talk about 

were the words ‘‘home’’ and ‘‘celebration.’’ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

Before proceeding, I want to remind 

us of the heroes of Texas District 17. 

Since I was sworn into office on January 5, 2011, the 17th Congressional District of Texas has lost seven military 

personnel: Sergeant Scott Burgess; 

Staff Sergeant Bryan Burgess; Sergeant Edward F. Dixon, III; PFC Jesse 

Dietrich; Lieutenant Colonel David 

Cabrera; Captain Nathan Anderson; 

and Lieutenant Colonel Roy Tisdale. 

b 1900 

In addition, we have lost two law enforcement personnel during that time, 

Deputy Sheriff Taylor from Johnson 

County; and on August 13, we lost Constable Brian Bachmann. In each case, 

God called home one of his children 

and heaven has been celebrating since 

each of those arrivals. 

Brian and I met in early 2010 when we 

were both running for our respective 

offices. Neither of us had ever run for 

public office before; and even though 

we came from different backgrounds, 

we formed a great friendship that endured the rigors of tough political campaigns. 

Following our victories, we remained 

great friends. Each time we were together at various events, we always 

picked up our conversations where we 

had left off at the prior events. Most of 

the time we teased each other in these 

conversations. 

The last time I talked to Brian was 

the Thursday before he was called 

home by God. We were both volunteers 

at the Brazos Valley Food Bank’s 

Feast of Caring. We started out by 

teasing each other again. He began saying that I must not be a very good politician because I was already having to 

run again for office, to which I replied, 

Oh really, Bachmann? From what I’ve 

seen, you’re the reason we need term 

limits. 

Following that conversation and fellowship, we went back to cleaning tables and serving food. I never appreciated the fact that I wouldn’t see him 

on this Earth again. 

This is the Brian Bachmann that I 

knew, the friendly and always smiling 

guy who could care less about anyone’s 

title. He was the person that loved our 

community and would do anything for 

it. He was the model public servant. 

However, and more importantly, he 

was a servant leader who ultimately 

modeled the words of Jesus in John 

15:13 which state: ‘‘Greater love hath 

no man than this that he lay down his 

life for his friends.’’ 

I started this conversation by talking 

about home and celebration. At the end 

of each week, I jump on a plane and 

head home from Washington to Texas. 

That is where I’m happiest. That’s 

where my wife, Gina is. It is close to 

our sons, our daughter-in-law and our 

granddaughter. In short, it is the community that I love. I always celebrate 

those homecomings, and my sense of 

excitement always builds as the airliner approaches Bryan/College Station. 

The same thing happened on the 

afternoon of August 13. As Brian’s situation changed here on Earth, others 

were preparing his new home. Brian 

knew this day would come. However, 

like the rest of us, he didn’t know 

when, where, or how. But because of his 

relationship with Christ, he knew that 

he would someday be able to look forward to going to his next home for 

eternity. God knew all the details 

about Brian’s homecoming, and the 

celebration started immediately on the 

afternoon when he left us. 

The Apostle Paul reinforces this in 2 

Corinthians 5:8, where he says: ‘‘We are 

confident, I say, and would prefer to be 

away from the body and at home with 

the Lord.’’ This is the same knowledge 

that all Christians have. We know that 

when our human life ends, we will 

move to our eternal home with God. 

At that moment, on August 13, Brian 

instantly heard the voices of those who 

had gone before him welcoming him 

home but, more importantly, the One 

who loved Brian enough to die for him 

held out his nail-pierced hands, embraced him and said, ‘‘Howdy, Brian. 

Welcome to your new home.’’ Those 

same hands and arms embrace and 

comfort Brian’s family and all of us 

here now. 

About 20 years ago, Max Lucado 

wrote a book titled ‘‘The Applause of 

Heaven.’’ I’m going to paraphrase the 

last few paragraphs of that book, as 

follows: 

You’ll be home soon. You may not 

have noticed it, but you’re closer to 

home than ever before. Each moment is 

a step taken. Each breath is a page 

turned. Each day is a mile marker 

passed, a mountain climbed. You’re 

closer to home than you’ve ever been. 

Just as when my airline flight approaches Bryan/College Station each 

week, before you know it, your appointed arrival time will come. You’ll 

descend the ramp and enter the city. 

You’ll see the faces that are waiting 

for you. You’ll hear your name spoken 

by those who love you. And in the 

back, behind the anxious crowd, the 

One who would rather die than live 

without you will remove His pierced 

hands from His heavenly robe and applaud your arrival. 

We should be celebrating Brian’s 

heavenly homecoming here on Earth as 

well. He is another soldier that fought 

the good fight and gone home where 

God has told him, ‘‘Well done, good and 

faithful servant.’’ 

Brian’s parents, Brad and Carmen, 

his wife, Donna, and his children, Sam, 

Amanda, Colby and Caitlyn, can all 

take comfort in Brian’s homecoming 

because we know that the cross of 

Jesus has won again. 

Brian’s sacrifice should remind us 

that we’re all here to serve. It is my 

prayer that Brian’s homecoming reminds us of all our human frailties and 

the shortness of our time here on this 

Earth. I’m hopeful that all of us will 

have the type of relationship with 

Christ that Brian did, so we will have 

similar homecomings with Him in 

heaven. 

Let me close by asking everyone here 

to pray for and support the Bachmann 

family. Please pray for our country 

during these troubled times. Please 

pray for our military men and women 

who sacrifice to protect us abroad, and 

please pray for our first responders like 

Brian Bachmann who protect us here 

at home. 

Brian, we celebrate your homecoming. 

I again thank the gentleman for 

yielding. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

HUIZENGA of Michigan). The gentleman 

from Texas will be recognized. 

Mr. GOHMERT. How much time is 

remaining, Mr. Speaker? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 25 minutes remaining. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it’s a 

difficult day, difficult week in the 

world. And I appreciate the tribute of 

my friend, BILL FLORES, for a great 

American hero. 

I also want to pay tribute today to 

our U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, 

and the three others who were killed in 

Libya in the service of their country. 

We grieve for their families. We grieve 

for their friends and all who may have 

come to harm and will come to harm; 

hopefully, no more, but our thoughts 

and prayers are with them. 

It is important, during times when 

Americans are attacked on American 

soil, American buildings are attacked, 

which is what an American Embassy is, 

that the world understand that there 

will be consequences. 

For those who sometimes want to 

ask, well, aren’t you a Christian, don’t 

you believe in turning the other cheek? 

The answer is, yes, individually. But 

there is a different charge for the government. There is a different charge for 

the people who have the responsibility 

of government and protecting the people and their rights. 

The United States Government has 

the obligation to protect our citizens, 

to protect those who are serving this 

country, and as far as our military, to 

give them everything they need to win, 

whatever it takes, give them rules of 

engagement to allow them to win, 

whatever it takes, and then come 

home. 

So it grieves me much, also, to see a 

time when people are dying, not for a 

wishy-washy government in Washington, D.C. that can’t decide what its 

priorities are, but for the ideal for 

which America stands and for what it 

represents, for what it represents to 

people who yearn for freedom around 

the world. 

And it does not help when an administration, in response to American attacks on American soil and American 

individuals, the administration ends up 

asking Americans to give up their 

First Amendment rights for which our 

servicemembers are fighting. 

b 1910 

It doesn’t help when a general calls 

an American and asks an American to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5919 

give up your First Amendment rights 

rather than proclaiming to the world, 

We’re the United States military. 

You’ve attacked our country. You’ve 

attacked our brothers and sisters, and 

you will pay for that. 

When we took an oath to defend the 

Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it means that when 

enemies who are foreign enemies attack on American soil—attack Americans because they’re Americans—we 

have an obligation if they were not 

protected and they got hurt or killed. 

We have an obligation to those who 

would serve behind them—to those who 

are in this country—to protect them 

for the future. 

That doesn’t come when an administration or even a general turns around 

and says, Hey, I know I took an oath to 

defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but we 

think, by your utilizing your First 

Amendment rights, it may be offending 

people around the world, so why don’t 

you just subject your First Amendment rights to shari’a law. So it’s okay 

to burn a Bible. That’s okay. It’s okay 

to burn a flag. Okay. That’s all right. 

But just, for heaven’s sake, don’t say 

anything that might offend someone of 

the Islamic religion. 

I, personally, don’t think anybody 

should do that, but I certainly do think 

we should defend ourselves against radical Islamists who want to annihilate 

this country and destroy our way of 

life. We have an obligation. We took an 

oath to do that, not an oath to say: 

Let’s give up the Constitution. I took 

an oath to defend and subject it to 

shari’a. No, no, no. Let’s give that up 

so that maybe the people who are killing Americans and the people who are 

attacking our Embassies won’t feel so 

offended, and maybe they won’t kill 

people. 

That is not the role of a general. It’s 

not the role of a general to tell former 

military members that they should 

never speak out against a Commander 

in Chief when, as former members of 

the military, they’re in a good place to 

be able to judge what’s going on. It is 

and it should be a crime within the 

military to create problems for good 

order and discipline by publicly demeaning or condemning anyone in your 

chain of command. In my 4 years at 

Fort Benning, we knew that. President 

Carter drove me crazy with his ineptitude, with his inability to make decisions, to make the tough calls, and in 

his pathetic handling of the attack on 

our American Embassy in Tehran for 

which America still pays in the pathetic way it was handled. 

For those of us who have been in the 

military, there is an obligation when 

you see the same mistakes being repeated. Since you know that those in 

uniform cannot step up and criticize 

the chain of command, we have an obligation to do that, and it is not helpful 

for anyone with stars on his shoulders 

to tell former military members, Oh, 

this is not appropriate for you to criticize my boss. How about the person 

with stars on his shoulders stepping up 

and doing the criticizing privately on 

behalf of the soldiers he is supposed to 

be commanding and protecting? 

There are stories that are coming 

out. Time will tell. This one is from 

Fox News today. It’s entitled ‘‘U.S. Officials Suspect Strike on Benghazi Post 

‘Coordinated,’ Timed for 9/11 Anniversary.’’ 

U.S. officials are increasingly suspicious 

that the murder Tuesday of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and 

three other American officials was not the 

result of a protest against an anti-Islam 

film, but instead was a coordinated terror 

strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the 

September 11 attacks. 

A senior administration official told Fox 

News they are exhaustively investigating 

every angle of the attack in Benghazi, and 

an earlier assault on the U.S. Embassy in 

Cairo, Egypt, and there are early signs the 

Benghazi assault may have been planned. 

The official cautioned, though, that the administration has not jumped to any conclusions about what happened, saying it would 

be ‘‘premature’’ to do so. 

The article goes on down, and it 

quotes different people. One is Pete 

Hoekstra, the former chairman of the 

House Intelligence Committee, who 

told Fox News that the attack appeared to have the markings of an al 

Qaeda or an al Qaeda-affiliated strike. 

It quotes him as saying: 

‘‘We’ve been talking for years about the 

desire of Al Qaeda, radical jihadists to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11. All my background, all of the conversations that I’ve had 

over the last 18 hours lead many people to 

believe that this was just more than a mere 

coincidence.’’ 

Hoekstra noted that the supposed protesters—purportedly angry over a film that 

ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad— 

didn’t attack in Tripoli. They attacked in 

Benghazi, ‘‘where it so happens our Ambassador is.’’ And they happened to be ‘‘fully 

armed and fully equipped,’’ he said. 

Hoekstra noted that al Qaeda chief Ayman 

al-Zawahiri had recently released a video 

calling on militants to attack Americans in 

revenge for the killing of an operative in 

Pakistan. The message said his ‘‘blood is 

calling on you, inciting you to fight and kill 

the crusaders.’’ 

Hoekstra said the film may have been just 

a cover to carry out such an attack. 

Two intelligence officials also said the attack looked ‘‘coordinated.’’ 

London-based think tank Quilliam reached 

the same conclusion, saying the Benghazi 

strike appeared to be a ‘‘well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration (over the 

film).’’ 

Also, the brother of Zawahiri was nearby 

during the separate protest at the American 

Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday. 

There is so much going on, but one of 

the last things that people ought to do 

is say it’s time to give up First Amendment rights. One of the goals that we 

know of for the Muslim Brotherhood in 

the United States within 10 years—it 

was one of their 10-year goals—is to 

subjugate the U.S. Constitution to 

shari’a law. There are great patriots 

who have called upon Americans to, 

perhaps, make it illegal to speak out 

and offend or to do anything that 

might offend worshipers of Islam without saying the same thing about any 

other religion whether it’s Buddhist, 

Christian, whatever. 

If they have their way and if we 

make the mistake of curtailing our 

constitutional rights to avoid offending 

people who want to annihilate us anyway and who want to have an international caliphate where they rule over 

us anyway—those they don’t destroy— 

we make a major error. There are those 

who say there should be no criticism 

among Members of Congress and people 

in the government as to the handling 

by the Commander in Chief, but since 

we know people in uniform cannot 

speak out when they see mistakes by 

their commanders, we have an obligation to them to speak out. 

But I do make this pledge to my 

friends across the aisle that, in any 

criticism, I will endeavor to ensure 

that I, personally, do not ever make 

the kind of wild-eyed allegations 

against this President that were leveled at President Bush by them. 

b 1920 

How quickly some people forget. 

Also, I understand this is a political 

season, it is a time when people are 

running for election and reelection. We 

all know that. But we have a friend. We 

have a prime minister of a friendly nation who has been mistreated by this 

administration, who deserves better 

treatment by this administration, who 

deserves to have this administration 

and this President keep their words 

that have been given to our friends in 

Israel, and it wouldn’t hurt to meet 

with such a leader. 

We know that in July that there were 

people who came to the White House 

for meetings in the White House, one of 

whom was a member of a known terrorist organization. That terrorist was 

allowed into the White House. Obviously, from the hearing we had with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

Janet Napolitano, from a response she 

gave to me, she was ignorant of fact 

that we had a terrorist going into the 

White House for meetings. But by the 

next day when she testified, I believe, 

across in the Senate, she had become 

aware that we had a member of a terrorist organization meeting in the 

White House, and apparently this administration intends to continue meeting with members of known terrorist 

organizations, from what was said back 

in July. 

And yet, the President—though he 

had time for meetings with known terrorists—will not carve out a little time 

to meet with the prime minister of our 

dear friend Israel at a time when Israel 

and many in the United States suspect 

that Iran may be 2 months away from 

having the nukes to carry out another 

Holocaust. We don’t know the specific 

days there may be, but it would seem 

that you wouldn’t necessarily need a 

rocket to have pinpoint accuracy if it’s 

carrying a nuclear weapon. And now 

that we’ve seen trouble on the borders 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

of Israel, all around Israel almost, it 

doesn’t seem it would be impossible to 

get one smuggled in. Rockets have 

been smuggled in by the hundreds that 

are routinely fired into Israel from the 

Gaza Strip. That’s why there was a legitimate legal blockade to try to prevent those types of things from coming 

into the Gaza Strip, but they came in 

anyway, and they continue to come in. 

We owe our friend, our ally, who this 

President has pressured, has cajoled, 

has ridiculed, has snubbed, and taunted 

by just saying, Trust us, we’ll take 

care of Iran, don’t worry about your 

national security, trust us. No nation 

should be told that they cannot invoke 

self-defense when their nation is at 

risk of being annihilated. 

I remember learning in college that 

President Eisenhower had ordered that 

people from towns surrounding areas of 

these concentration camps where, 

when totaled together, was 6 million 

Jews that were killed, murdered, tortured, maimed, and he ordered that the 

people from the towns be required to 

come help clean up. The reasoning was 

so that no one could ever say the Holocaust never happened, because they 

cleaned up the atrocity. I remember 

thinking that was a little overboard for 

General Eisenhower. Really, you had to 

rub those peoples’ noses in such horrible affliction? It hasn’t been that 

long ago that I had these thoughts, and 

now we have people, like leaders of 

countries like Iran, that is about to 

have nuclear weapons if we don’t intercede, who have said just that the Holocaust never happened, it was a hoax. 

Unbelievable. 

It is unbelievable to me that in a 

matter of decades since World War II, 

since that horrible Holocaust, such an 

indictment against the human race, 

that people could do that to one race. 

It’s just almost unfathomable that 

even in Europe, where those atrocities 

were committed and genocide was attempted, that we would see this growing anti-Semitism raising its ugly head 

again. And at the same time anti-Semitism is growing even in Europe, a civilized area, an educated area, it grows 

around the world, as we see people in 

the Middle East begin to have dreams 

of a new Ottoman Empire where every 

religion will be subjected to some of 

what we’ve seen happen in those countries where we helped bring about an 

Arab spring that’s turned into a winter 

nightmare. 

This is not a time to play petty personal games, to snub leaders of friends, 

of allies, even when you disagree with 

them, for heaven’s sake. Take a little 

time from a fundraiser, take a little 

time that you don’t go to the golf 

course, and meet with the leader of a 

country that sees hatred for its people, 

anti-Semitism, the racism, the bigotry 

growing around the world, that is 

scared for its own existence, that can’t 

be sure we’re going to be there with 

them because of the actions of this administration. Take a little time to 

meet with them. It is an inconvenient 

thing to have to be President when you 

are really best at running for office, 

but take some time and be President 

and meet with our friends. 

The messages that are going out to 

those whom we seek to make allies for 

the future is not a good message. The 

people that have laid down their lives 

for the American ideal deserve the best 

we can give them. So on this day when 

we grieve and our flags are at half mast 

for the atrocity committed against our 

ambassador and others, our thoughts 

and prayers are with the families, and 

our thoughts and prayers are that our 

leadership will become what it should 

be to protect America. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

f 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to: 

Mr. CULBERSON (at the request of Mr. 

CANTOR) for today until 3:30 p.m. on account of a family obligation. 

Mr. CICILLINE (at the request of Ms. 

PELOSI) for September 10 and 11 on account of district work. 

f 

ADJOURNMENT 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move 

that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o’clock and 29 minutes 

p.m.), under its previous order, the 

House adjourned until tomorrow, 

Thursday, September 13, 2012, at 10 

a.m. for morning-hour debate. 

f 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, 

ETC. 

Under clause 2 of Rule XIV, executive 

communications were taken from the 

Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 

7583. A letter from the Director, Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the Administration’s final rule — Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Reporting of Government — Furnished Property 

(DFARS Case 2012-D001) (RIN: 0750-AG83) received August 24, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed 

Services. 

7584. A letter from the Chief, Broadband 

Division, Wireless Communications Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission’s final rule — In the 

Matter: Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of 

Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other 

Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to 

Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational 

Fixed Microwave Licensees; Petition for 

Rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Amend Part 101 of the 

Commission’s Rules to Authorize 60 and 80 

MHz Channels in Certain Bands for 

Broadband Communications [WT Docket No.: 

10-153] [RM-11602] received August 29, 2012, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

7585. A letter from the Director, Office of 

Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, transmitting the Commission’s 

final rule — Endorsement of Nuclear Energy 

Institute Guidance for Developing Seismic 

Hazard Information Requested in the 50.54(F) 

Letter Dated March 12, 2012 received August 

20, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

7586. A letter from the Acting Director, 

International Cooperation, Department of 

Defense, transmitting Pursuant to Section 

27(f) of the Arms Export Control Act and 

Section 1(f) of Executive Order 11958, Transmittal No. 3-12 informing of an intent to sign 

the Memorandum of Understanding with 

Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7587. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-068, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7588. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-081, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export 

Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs. 

7589. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-085, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export 

Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs. 

7590. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-073, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export 

Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs. 

7591. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-099, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export 

Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs. 

7592. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-084, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7593. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-038, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7594. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-049, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7595. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-088, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7596. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-065, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7597. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-074, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

7598. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, 

Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 

transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 12-097, 

pursuant to the reporting requirements of 

Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control 

Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE