Cory Mills

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I will start out by saying that I really admire and love my colleague from Hawaii. We have had many conversations together on the strengthening of our military, especially when it comes to Schofield Barracks and the rest, and the same is true with the ranking member, my colleague, Adam Smith. I will say, however, for the record, I served in the United States military. As an Army combat veteran, I proudly served with people from Hawaii, people from Puerto Rico, and people from the Virgin Islands. I have seen the diversity which exists, and I think that the utilization of DEI and CRT is what has led to the creation of the recruitment deficit of 41,000 that we see today. Our military is not supposed to be prioritizing the ideas of critical race theory or diversity, equity, inclusion. It should be about increased lethality, readiness, and being properly equipped. This is how we defeat our enemies. It is not through the ideas of trying to create division, and it is not through the ideas of pronoun training, where I can guarantee you that we cannot pronoun all of our enemies, but the he/him, they/them, and she/her is not going to make us a stronger military. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Anna Paulina Luna's amendment, and I ask that we understand that we are here to strengthen our military, not to divide it.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I just point out once again, as a United States Army combat veteran, I served with people from different races, creeds, and genders. None of that mattered; we all bled green. When we went to Iraq and Afghanistan, when we were sitting in Kosovo, not once did we talk about who did you vote for, what religion do you follow, what gender do you identify as. We were a cohesive unit that believed in service. I think that the DEI, which was actually passed in last year's NDAA in the House, should actually show that we are ready to close this because it has caused division, not inclusion. When you talk about the 41,000 deficit that we are seeing today, I think that we were a much stronger military with greater recruitment efforts when we were prioritizing the ideas of coming together, fighting a common enemy, training as one. This is what matters to our United States military when we strengthen ourselves; not the idea of trying to identify ourselves as being something different, but as being one. That is the military that I served in. That is the military I believe in. We need to stop allowing our military to only think about serving political agendas and get back to what they are supposed to do, which is serving our country. I have seen nothing but division through DEI. One of those examples that we talk about is that we want to try to make sure everyone has a right to their own opinions. The reality is that Tyler Bowyer had a Turning Point event where military members were actually refused attendance because of being conservatives. We need to be a stronger military. I support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I have great respect for my colleague, Mr. Smith, and I have served proudly with him on the Armed Services Committee. I remind him that it is our responsibility. As our Founding Fathers established in 1777, it is Congress under Article I that has the rights and authorities to be able to designate which flags are flown over military installations. We are not talking about outside of their barracks. We are not talking about what they fly outside of their own rooms or even the buildings that they occupy. We are talking about the military installation as a whole. The one thing that Congress has gotten very good at is abdicating our responsibilities the same way that we abdicate Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 13 of our war powers authority within the actual AUMF, Authorization for Use of Military Force. I ask my colleagues to explain why. In 1777, we deemed this as a congressional authority, but we now say that any command--and there are good commands; there are bad commands-- has the right to overrule what has actually been done here in the body. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, once again, to explain why we continue to abdicate our roles and responsibilities within this Chamber only to complain about them further later. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman that the purpose of Congress is not to try to pass as many bills as you can possibly pass. Actually, it was the opposite of that. It was actually trying to make it very difficult. The reason that we are so big on wanting to try to gauge the metrics by how many bills we pass is because we don't even enforce the existing laws that we have on the books, and we think that is somehow a metric of success. The reality is that we are not supposed to be involved in day-to-day lives, which is why, in 1777, they made it very clear: Here are the authorized flags we can fly. I can tell you that if there were a tremendous amount of MAGA flags flying over military installations, you would hear an absolute outcry by the left that would come in and tell you that these are not authorized and approved flags, so how dare they do this, it is a complete atrocity, and J6 is a result of this. The funny thing is that it is only a great argument when it is to their own benefit, but the reality is this: Why can't it be simple? The simplest thing is that our military installations and our military servicemembers, myself as an actual armed services member--not sure that my colleagues have actually served in the Army--we wore an American flag on our uniform. Why? Because that is what our American country represented, that flag. Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues support this and that we get back to supporting and honoring our flag. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, the Embassy Construction Integrity Act is very simple: America's adversaries must not be involved in building our diplomatic and consular posts. This, in my opinion, is a commonsense bill, or at least it should be. Last year, Congress was made aware that a Chinese state-owned enterprise was involved in the construction of a post in south Asia. Despite all of the bureaucratic red tape the State Department goes through to establish these posts, somehow checking whether the Chinese Government controls the companies constructing the building didn't quite make the list. The Chinese Government has established a pattern of leveraging its state-owned enterprise to serve dual functions during and after construction to spy on sensitive facilities. Chinese-owned companies built the African Union headquarters. Like many things, they can't just build something, they have to build it with Chinese characteristics. In this case, those Chinese characteristics were spyware that was utilized to quietly siphon enormous amounts of data every night for the Chinese Government. According to a study by Joshua Meservey, an expert in African geopolitics, Chinese companies have built nearly 200 government facilities in Africa, a number that is sure to have only increased since the study was published. I am not telling other countries who they can or cannot employ to construct their buildings. My bill is simple, however, that when our adversaries show us how they operate, that we should believe them and take steps to mitigate those risks. Specifically, this bill requires the State Department, before establishing a new diplomatic or consular post, to identify the beneficial owners of the companies involved in the construction and maintenance of those buildings. Further, this bill prohibits the State Department from entering into contracts or agreements if the beneficial owners of the companies are affiliated with the Chinese Government. Finally, if inconsistent actions are discovered, the Secretary of State would be required to report it to Congress within 7 days. Briefly, it is important to address the fact that it would be impossible for the State Department to operate in China if they weren't allowed to contract with some of these companies. The bill is carefully crafted to avoid stifling the important work of the State Department in China or the limited other locations where inconsistent measures may be the only option. However, even in these cases, Congress should be notified so that we do our job and have proper oversight for all of these activities. Aside from those extraordinarily limited circumstances, the State Department must conduct greater due diligence to secure the integrity of our embassies and other consular posts around the world. I express my sincere gratitude to Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, my bipartisan colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee who unanimously voted in favor of this bill during its markup, and each of their staffs who worked with me to secure it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6306.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits schools from participating in the school lunch program under the act from purchasing or offering milk produced by Chinese state-owned enterprises that may be operating here within the United States or elsewhere. As many of us know, in 2008, the melamine scandal exposed systemic corruption and disregard for the safety standards within China's own dairy industry. This scandal resulted in the death of six infants and sickened thousands more, highlighting the devastating consequences of lax regulations and unethical practices. The evidence is clear: These enterprises pose a serious threat to our consumers' health, our economic security, and our national interests. We can't allow CCP enterprises to export their dangerous practices to our school lunches. This is an issue of maintaining American control of critical supply chains. Chinese state-owned enterprises have no business being in our schools. Florida is one of the largest cattle producers in America, and there is no way I will allow producers in my State to be compromised by the CCP or the PRC. If we fail to act, we risk losing our family farms and jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of Americans. This is not about trade isolationism; it is about protecting our children in schools from unsafe products, ensuring fair competition for American producers, and safeguarding our national security. The potential consequences of inaction are simply too great for me to ignore. The quality and safety of food that we provide to our children is paramount, and we cannot compromise on these standards. We must be vigilant about our source and production practices of the products that are present in our educational institutions and safeguard them from adversaries that do not share our same interests. By prohibiting schools from purchasing or offering milk produced by China's state-owned enterprises operating in the United States and elsewhere, we aim to send a clear message about our commitment to health and the safety of our children. Last year, over 30 million schoolchildren relied on school lunches for their nutrition. We have seen how the CCP has approached other industries, and we cannot allow such an important sector to become vulnerable in a time of crisis. Therefore, I urge you to join me in preventing the CCP-supported entities from infiltrating school lunches and a key American supply chain. This is a necessary step to protect the health and well-being of our citizens, safeguard our economy, and defend our national interests. Let us send a clear message that we will prioritize the safety and security of our Nation's schoolchildren above all else. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, and I understand that facts, for whatever reason, seem to sink in a lot slower on the left than they do in America's party, so I will say this once more. In 2008, the melamine scandal exposed systemic corruption and disregard for our complete safety in milk and other dairy products produced by China, so it is interesting that the gentleman says they are not actually weakening anything when they had infants and children by the thousands who died or were sickened by their actual production capacity capabilities or incapabilities. Again, facts are a very finicky thing. They oftentimes slowly leak in on the left, but you can't dispute that China's production of dairy has been less safe and less put under the regulations of rigorous streams than they do in American production with the FDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment cuts back spending for the Office of Public Health Scientific Services by more than $158 million to return us back to our FY19 funding levels. This reins back the irresponsible, ballooned spending that we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The House of Representatives has to hold itself accountable to fiscal responsibility. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have, entrenching our country into more debt that future generations will be unable to pay back. Our public health offices, particularly during COVID-19, have proven they do not effectively follow scientific method. In fact, I would argue that this body only follows political science, not medical science. While some of these offices certainly played roles in helping to research the effects of COVID, others like the Office of Public Health Scientific Services, were ineffective and do not serve their purpose. We do not need another redundant public health office to advance the politicized work of the Federal Government's public health operations. Furthermore, as a businessowner, I know the value of industry driving policy and not policy driving industry. These cuts encourage increased collaboration with the private sector to leverage external resources and expertise to support the public health initiatives. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman actually stepping up. She asked two key questions that I really liked. First off, what would it eliminate was one of the questions. Well, what it would eliminate is the wasteful and fraudulent spending that has gone to the NIH, as well as to those who have actually continued to pursue things like gain of function under Fauci, and we saw how that worked out. The other thing she also questioned, what should we have learned. Well, what we have learned is that we are actually spinning ourselves into an economic abyss; the fact that we are actually leading the Nation when it comes to continually frivolous spending. I love how only in Washington can we call something emergency spending levels but then maintain it throughout the period in which we are going to move forward. We have to acknowledge the fact that in 2019, pre-COVID spending levels, if you did a 3\1/2\ percent adjusted rate, that would get us to an actual spending cap of $1.477 trillion today, not the $1.586 trillion, not the $1.786 trillion, and certainly not the $2 trillion that the Democrats want to continue to spend. The bottom line, Mr. Chair, is this: We are not saying that we will not have the necessary spending for our public health sectors and others to continue to do their job. What we are saying is that we should return our spending levels to pre-COVID, pre-emergency levels that would be in sync with what we have always done, at a 3\1/2\ percent adjusted rate. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, in closing, it is very clear that the only thing that D.C. continues to do successfully is spend American taxpayer funding. We did not do what was necessary to mitigate these risks. There was always this 2 weeks to slow the curve. I wish there were 2 weeks to slow our spending. We need to get back to where we were before so that we can get control, start looking at economic growth, start looking at what is best and having industry drive the actual policy, not policy drive the industry. We need to reduce and limit the government's reach into the public sector to ensure that they have what they need driven by them, for them. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, my amendment is pretty simple. This would cut back on the spending for the office of the NIH Director by more than $160 million to return us back to the fiscal year 2019 funding level. This amendment ensures appropriate accountability for the NIH's recent failures while also advancing the urgent need for better fiscal responsibility of the House. When the Republicans took over the majority, we promised to rein in inflation and government spending. We must do more than talk. We must start to act. The NIH resoundingly failed to do its due diligence to prevent gain- of-function research at Chinese labs, and this failure was fundamental to the existence of the virus that caused the pandemic. To date, there has been absolutely no accountability for these failures and others, and Congress would be failing its duty to ensure accountability by doing nothing and continuing this irresponsible funding to the NIH. We must stop Fauci's experimental process, start holding accountability, get research into finding out exactly what the leading cause was, and make sure we have the necessary prevention. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman for her acknowledgment that we have increased spending by $8.4 billion, of which some of that funding led to additional trillions of dollars in spending and thousands of lives lost, as we funded things like the gain of function under Fauci, which led to the spread of COVID. Now, when you talk about the cut of $160 million, the only response that I can think of is you are welcome. You are welcome to the American people for us saving money and for us actually doing our job to be fiscally responsible once again. You are welcome that we won't allow continuation of funding for gain of function that would lead to another pandemic, as we saw across the world. You are welcome that we are actually, in the Republican Party as the majority, taking a stand to stop the out-of-control and runaway spending that has been irresponsible and driving generations and generations into future debt. Mr. Chairman, this is pretty simple. Without that funding there probably would have been no pandemic. Unless we are going to get accountability and do the necessary research, I cannot continue to sponsor Fauci and NIH and their efforts to go ahead and spread and lead to another COVID. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I love how our colleagues on the left refer to every conspiracy as a conspiracy until it is found to be factual, which is 99 percent of the time. I am also aware that Mr. Fauci is no longer there and we are very thankful for that. His accountability on what he had done with helping to fund gain of function, which was actually something that led to spreading the Wuhan virus, which was also in partnership with China-- this is something that still needs accountability research and the necessary review within Congress. I am aware that we are continuing to spend at emergency COVID levels and we need to get back to where we were before. This is simple mathematics. If emergency-level spending is meant to be only during a time of emergency, then why do we continue to make that the new benchmark of spending moving forward. The whole point is, is that we would bring it back to the pre-COVID spending levels, which is what the American people are looking at. They are looking for us to stop the irresponsible spending and actually get to what the root cause is, which is the U.S. Congress. I hate to say it in this way, but the bottom line is that I will not continue to fund these types of things. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support me in this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today to support Representative Boebert's request for this to be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security with regard to the dereliction of duty under this administration and this President's policies. As a United States Army combat veteran, I have fought abroad for the majority of my adult life. I have spent over 7 years of my life in Iraq, over 3 years of my life in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan, and northern Somalia. I have been blown up twice, and I am a Bronze Star recipient. I went overseas for the purpose of protecting this Nation and ensuring that terrorists do not have the ability to come to threaten our lives and threaten our children, but under the failed policies of this President just this last year, in the last 7 months, we have had over 96 people who are on the known terrorist watch list who have crossed our borders. I would love to know from this President and from everyone else here: Why did my brothers go and die in the thousands? Why did we waste 20- plus years of our lives fighting terrorism? Why did we go ahead and botch the Afghan withdrawal and leave our allies behind if we were just going to open our borders anyway to them? Tell me why it was that we were going to vote to fight in these wars to protect this Nation when this President and his failed policies were going to do nothing but open up our borders to the terrorists who are coming across daily. We will see another 9/11-type attack if we continue this type of unsafe policy and do not get ahold of this right now.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H. Res. 521 to censure and condemn Congressman Adam Schiff. The bottom line is this: Congressman Schiff utilized his position and hid behind classifications to mislead the American people. He abused his congressional authority and security clearance to push his own party's political agenda. This was not meant to be an unbiased jurisdiction of change; this was meant to be a political witch hunt. When Members are appointed to the select committees on intelligence, they are trusted with privileged information. Other Members of the House are taking them for their word. As someone who has worked within the intelligence community, I can tell you that our classifications that were available to take and read is not to be abused for our own ulterior motives. I hope my colleagues will join Congresswoman Luna to censure and hold Congressman Schiff accountable and to put an end to the waste, fraud, abuse, and the gross neglect in how we take advantage of the American people.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Wilbur Harry Cline's 100th birthday and honor his service as a World War II veteran. Eighty years ago, Wilbur answered the call to defend our freedoms and this great Nation. He served our great Nation in the 133rd Regiment, 34th Division, in the United States Army during World War II. He received the Purple Heart, Good Conduct Medal, and Campaign Medal with three bronze stars for shedding his blood to defend this great Nation. He is a true patriot who marched through liberated Rome and faced horrendous battle conditions throughout his journey. He is such a devout man that he is even known to have recited the Lord's Prayer as the German 88 artillery shells rained down around him and wounded him in 1944. While he does not think of himself as a hero, he is to his son, Michael; his family; and this entire Nation. It is a privilege to recognize his service to our country and celebrate his 100th birthday. I wish Mr. Cline many more joyful years to come with his family. I thank him, and God bless.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, today I stand before you to emphasize the critical need for the Department of Defense's involvement in fentanyl research. My amendment would include the Department of Defense in the list of eligible agencies that qualify for the expedited procedures on fentanyl research. The Department of Defense has several existing research programs involving fentanyl, and considering that today's servicemembers are tomorrow's veterans, there is no reason why the DOD should be ineligible for these expedited processes. Not only should this bill be directed at our veterans but the brave men and women who serve on Active Duty and are also susceptible to injuries that are routinely prescribed opioids as the treatment. As we all know, this can lead to serious addictions. My amendment would ensure that the DOD is included in the research and reporting process of fentanyl and its effects. As someone who was blown up twice overseas and was a combat medic, I know firsthand the pain and the injuries that the brave men and women in uniform can sustain. Common combat injuries can include second and third degree burns, spinal cord injuries, broken bones, limb loss, paralysis, and sharpened wounds. As we face this ever-growing crisis, it is imperative that our military actively participate in fentanyl research for several compelling reasons. By actively participating in fentanyl research, the DOD can make significant strides in addressing the opioid crisis within the ranks and improving the quality of healthcare provided through TRICARE to our brave servicemembers. Allow me to share some of these alarming statistics concerning the use of opioids among our Active Duty personnel. According to a study conducted by the Defense Health Agency, between the years of 2012 and 2017, the rate of opioid prescriptions within the military healthcare system has increased by a staggering 56 percent. This trend is deeply concerning as it highlights the potential risks and challenges faced by our servicemembers when it comes to opioid misuse and addiction. It is crucial to recognize that the DOD has a responsibility to ensure the physical and mental well-being of our military personnel. Engaging in fundamental research will allow the DOD to gain a deeper understanding of the specific challenges faced by Active Duty servicemembers regarding opioid usage. By providing the necessary support and resources to combat opioid addiction, the Department of Defense can empower our servicemembers to overcome this critical challenge and continue to fulfill their duties with resilience and strength. This research can lead to the development of new and innovative therapies, improved access to treatment resources, and more comprehensive addiction prevention programs for servicemembers abroad. It is essential to note that by prioritizing fentanyl research, the Department of Defense demonstrates its commitment to the overall well- being of our Active Duty personnel. By addressing the fentanyl and opioid crisis proactively, they will not only protect the lives and health of our servicemembers but also foster a culture of support and understanding within our military communities. This, in turn, contributes to the overall readiness and effectiveness of our Armed Forces, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the brave men and women in blue for Florida's Seventh District. I am honored to represent Seminole County and Volusia County law enforcement officers. While some of my colleagues on the left have called to defund and dismantle our police, I, as well as my fellow Republican colleagues, will always defend them. It is because of our police officers' bravery and courage on the front lines that we live safely. In times of crisis, they protect our communities by putting themselves in harm's way, and many times not being able to make it home to their loved ones. The officers we honor this week are not just members of law enforcement, they are our neighbors, our friends, and our family. They are individuals that represent the values we hold dear as Americans with integrity, honor, and courage. Madam Speaker, this week and every week, I honor their sacrifice and dedication to keeping our communities safe.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and remember Patricia Sutherlin McRee. Patricia Sutherlin McRee, a 30-year resident of Oviedo, and a constituent of mine, passed from us earlier this week. Patricia moved to the Space Coast in 1960 to teach at Melbourne High School, where she met a young Army officer who had been mobilized and sent to Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Patricia took her charm and commitment to service with her all over this Nation and overseas as an Army spouse. She organized support for families whose husbands were serving in Vietnam alongside her beloved Army husband, Marshall McRee. She mobilized love and comfort for new widows and fatherless children traumatized by the sudden loss of a serviceman killed in action. At every military base that the Army sent Patricia and Marshall to, she was a leader, a servant, and an essential part of the fabric of that community. In my district of Oviedo, Patricia served as leader of the Oviedo Women's Club and, for many years, organized the Great Day in the Country Festival to fundraise for that organization. She made every duty station a better place through her service, and she made central Florida a better place. My heartfelt condolences to her son-in-law, Congressman Brandon Williams, and his wife in this loss. May God bless her. Rest in peace.

Mr. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) for yielding. I also thank my colleagues, Mr. James and Mr. Zinke for their service. They, like myself, are combat veterans who understand the total cost of warfare. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my statement, I will address a couple of things that were mentioned by my colleagues here today. We talked about the idea that we are here to preserve freedoms and we are here to preserve democracy. Let's talk about our role in democracy. We went into Iraq in 2003 under the auspice that we were there for weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the people of Iraq. Only 2 years later did we supplement this with the 2005 Iraq Constitution, whereby article 76, in its own design, created sectarian democracy that gave rise to the Iranian control which ultimately gave rise to China's domination. We are not a nation-building element. We are warfighters. We are there to conduct counterterrorism operations when needed, but only at the expense that it is to the benefit of the American national security and U.S. interests. He talked about timely. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, we started our operations in Mogadishu in the early 1990s. We started the operations in Afghanistan in 2001, and we started the operations in Iraq in 2003. So by what definition do we determine is timely? The idea that my colleague--and rightfully so, and I agree with him-- Mr. James said about the repeal and replace piece of the AUMF, which I do view as an abdication of our roles and responsibilities as legislators under the Constitution in Article I, Clause 8, it does have a replacement, and I just stated it. It is called the United States Constitution war authorities. At no point in time can you find in the Constitution whereby it says we can repeal our rights as legislators under the Constitution to put in something which abdicates our roles and responsibilities for 20-plus years on an AUMF that was designed, and now being abused, by Presidents on the left and the right, who have been using it for its unintended purposes. While I agree with my colleague, Mr. Gaetz, that Afghanistan is completely not relevant to the discussion that was made, we are talking about an area whereby President Biden utilized political optics over military strategy, endangering the lives of our military, when we know that it was a conditions-based withdrawal. One thing was actually stated that is correct, which is the threat in which China possesses when it comes to the African Continent and that a vacuum could be created. Let's go ahead and focus on what China's ultimate goal is because it is not kinetics. It is not about the bomb- to-bomb, gun-to-gun, or bullet-to-bullet mechanism. It is about the economic and resource warfare impact. It is about the Belt and Road Initiative, which expands out the Eurasian border, takes over Africa, Oceania, cuts off the Western Hemisphere's supply chain in an effort to utilize the WHO, WEF, and OPEC to eliminate the U.S. dollar from the global currency. Let us address that issue. It is not one that is done by kinetics and warfighters, but by a whole-of-nation approach that deals with Treasury, that deals with the economic build-out, that deals with strengthening the industrial base at home, which stops the reliance on the very adversaries that we pay to slap us around every day. The idea that we are going to play this terrorist whack-a-mole where every time one pops, we send a new force, it does nothing to actually try and help with stabilization. Let's talk about our interactions. We had a terrorist organization known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which was based in a small portion in the Gulf of Aden out in Yemen. It wasn't until our drone strikes that caused numerous civilian casualties did we not play right into the ideology that Americans are here to destroy us and kill us due to our religious beliefs. We were actually the reason that al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula continued to grow. My colleague on the left--who I have a great deal of respect for and we sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee--Mr. Meeks, he talks about the fact that we have had no Americans killed in Somalia. That is absolutely false. In fact, we just had another soldier killed in 2018 as a result of an explosion that resulted in three more. Also in 2017, we had three more killed that were there. As someone who has had to go visit Arlington Cemetery on many occasions to see my brothers that are no longer here with me today, I don't think that we need to spare one more life of American bloodshed in an effort that we don't have a clear, strategic military objective to begin with. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we look at not being isolationists, as we are always called and considered, but also not interventionists. Our goal is to be protectionists; protection of our constitutional rights, our sovereignty, and the American people. That is our role. We keep talking about this 2001 AUMF that we are to repeal. Let's go through this. In 2019, the amendment to the 2020 NDAA to repeal the 2002 AUMF was stripped out in its final version. On November 14, 2018, the resolution introduced to assert Congress' war power authorities in Yemen, the Rules Committee stripped the resolution and its procedural privilege. Soon after, the Rules Committee stripped privilege from all war power resolutions for the remainder of the 115th Congress. We keep talking about what we are going to do, but I have seen very little action. This is one of the reasons I ran for Congress because there are too many politicians who like to talk and not enough statesmen who are willing to act. I know a little thing about action, considering that between my military and government experience I spent over 7 years of my life in Iraq, almost 3 years of my life in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan, and guess what, northern Somalia and the Puntland areas of Hargeisa and Berbera. I can tell you very clearly that what we are doing right now in our procedures is not making us safer. We must start to look at a real change in order to protect America, stop abdicating our roles and responsibilities, and start leading from the front.