Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

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

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I wish to thank Chairman Kline for his leadership on the legislation today and on the entire issue that he brings before Congress now. Chairman Kline has three notable goals when drafting the Student Success Act: restoring local control, reducing the Federal footprint, and empowering parents as well. He has succeeded in crafting a bill that works towards all these goals. For too long now, all across this Nation, parents, teachers, and administrators, the people that are closest and most directly responsible for our students, have spent their time fighting Federal education mandates rather than doing what we want them to do, which is focusing exclusively on teaching our students. Growing Federal intrusion into the American education system has been an unmitigated failure which has not improved students' achievement. To that end, I have now worked with the chairman to include language in the manager's amendment that clarifies that States are not required to accept Federal funds and the Federal mandates that are tied to them, so they are free to engage in the activity they need to. Additionally, the language clarifies that States are not required to participate in any of the Federal education programs. This language and the Student Success Act, as a whole, recognizes the American commitment to the principles of federalism, which allows for competition and innovation. I thank Chairman Kline for his leadership and for helping stem the Federal intrusion into our American education system. At this time, I would like to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Rokita.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, at this time, I would like to withdraw my amendment and urge my colleagues to support the underlying Student Success Act. Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. The President's unilateral refusal to implement ObamaCare's employer mandate for 1 year presents us with a question: Can the President suspend a law that was enacted by Congress and signed into law by that President? On this question, the Constitution and the principles of this Republic could not be clearer. The answer is an emphatic no, he cannot. Article II, section 3--it's called the ``take care'' clause of the Constitution--imposes a duty upon the President to execute the laws of the land, regardless of the difficulty of enforcement or his displeasure of the law. Not only has this President refused to enforce the law, but he has effectively rewritten the law, violating the separation of powers and infringing upon the exclusive right of this legislative body of this Congress. The executive branch has no constitutional right to write a law or to rewrite the law. So by refusing to enforce and effectively rewriting it, the President is setting a dangerous precedent under which laws enacted by a democratically elected Congress will no longer have the force of law, but will instead be relegated to the status of mere recommendations, which the President may choose to ignore at his whim. Mr. Speaker, this is not the rule of law; this is lawlessness, and that is why I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 45 saying as much. Finally, if President Obama finds ObamaCare to be as unworkable as he says it is, then he should call upon this Congress to do the right thing and to repeal the law immediately.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to America's remembrance the plight of missing children across our nation. On July 15, 1982--just over 30 years ago--a homicide victim was discovered in Blairstown, New Jersey, which is in the 5th Congressional District. The young victim--just 13 or 14 years of age at the time of her death--was never identified. To us today, she is known as Princess Doe. But to her family and friends, she remains a missing loved one--and each and every day her family lives with the uncertainty of what happened to her more than 30 years ago. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, almost 800,000 children under 18 are reported missing each year--or an average of 2,185 each day. Some of these instances have happy endings, and the children are reunited with their families. Sadly, other instances have tragic endings. Princess Doe never came home. I stand here today to draw attention to the plight of these missing children and their families. Each and every day, families across America pray for the return of their missing child. And each and every day, law enforcement professionals spend long hours and sleepless nights in search of these children. May we never forget those children still waiting to be found. May we never forget those families still looking for their missing child. And may we never cease in our efforts to reunite children safely with their families.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney), the gentleman also from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who all, along with us, were able to work together in a bipartisan manner on this legislation. I want to begin my comments today by clearing up what might be called a knee-jerk reaction that some commentators have made about our efforts on this legislation. Today's legislation is not about deregulating the swap markets or creating loopholes for market participants. In fact, this bill is just the opposite of that. You see, there is broad bipartisan support for appropriately regulating the swap markets and for shining the proverbial light of day, if you will, on what was once an opaque marketplace. I agree that bringing greater additional transparency and clarity to this market is a positive thing for all--for American consumers and taxpayers as well. Yet I have significant concerns about how the ongoing Dodd-Frank implementation of this appropriate regulation is being conducted. Only in Washington, D.C., would you have two, not one, regulatory bodies tasked to work together to implement rules required by Congress and then have them working down two separate, entirely different tracks on rules that will impact literally hundreds of American businesses and thousands of investors. What you have is one agency over here. It's moving forward with a 100-page informal guidance, and the other, on the other hand, has just released a 1,000-page formal rule proposal. One proposal applies U.S. regulations to transactions taking place entirely outside the U.S. between the U.S. nonpersons, and the other creates a new, detailed substitute compliance framework. So it's hard to imagine a scenario in which these two proposals are more different. In effect, we have two very powerful U.S. regulators. Both of them have literally hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in budget and thousands of staff, but at the end of the day, they cannot sit down together and work out a common proposal. That's not what Dodd-Frank wanted them to do. They wanted them to come together, and that's what this legislation would effectuate. H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, will restore that much- needed sanity to the rule-writing of this extraterritorial application of U.S. swaps regulation. Again, given that there has been some confusion and a great deal of mischaracterization by some commentators on the impact of this legislation, let me take a moment to make certain everyone understands exactly what it does and the effects it will have. You see, the legislation before us allows the CFTC and the SEC to continue to enjoy significant discretion and also flexibility as to how they implement the rules. We are not removing any of their current authority. In fact, we are adding to it, and we are enhancing it. First and foremost, the legislation specifically requires the SEC and the CFTC to have the same or identical cross-border rules. I think it's difficult--maybe it's impossible--for anyone to suggest that it is appropriate for two domestic U.S. regulatory bodies to have two different standards governing very similar parts of the market. So, by simply requiring the agencies to get together and have identical rules, the bill will limit the ability for potential arbitrage opportunities for the market participants, and it will ensure that we have standard identical regulatory regimes for both types of swaps. There is a great deal of ongoing discussion right now about how to limit this, about how to limit regulatory arbitrage opportunities for market participants. Under this new regime, the most glaring area of potential in this area is if the SEC and the CFTC have different rules; Secondly, the legislation would require a formal rule, not a guidance, to be issued. Currently, the CFTC is moving down the path of instituting a more amorphous guidance, if you will, which really has questionable legal authority. So, without a formal rule in place that carries the force of law, there is a valid concern that some entities won't feel the need to even abide by this guidance from the CFTC or, if it's challenged by a court, will feel that it might carry considerably less weight. So, by requiring a formal rule, the bill will then ensure that the force of law will apply without question; Finally, the legislation specifically authorizes the SEC and CFTC to regulate swap transactions between the U.S. and foreign entities. Now, this is important if the regulators are concerned about the importation of systemic risk. Why is this important? Because under current law, it is really questionable what authority these agencies actually have to regulate potential transactions between the U.S. and foreign participants. We add this to it and give them that explicit authority. So if the regulators are concerned about any foreign country not living up to the Obama administration's G-20 commitments that was established back in 2009, then these regulators will be able to work together to specifically authorize under the act. This expansion and enhancement, if you will, of the regulators' current authority--I would think it should be well received by the administration.

Mr. GARRETT. Finally, in a formal Statement of Administration Policy, the administration argues that the bill will somehow slow down implementation of title VII. This can't be further from the truth. By requiring the agencies to work together and put the same rule, this will remove legal obstacles here in Washington and ensure that we have the appropriate regulatory framework sooner rather than later. It will remind the people saying that we will somehow slow down implementation of these rules that, no, that cannot be further from the truth. Dodd- Frank was passed almost 3 years ago, and we're no closer today than we were 3 years ago to getting this done. Mr. Speaker, let us restore, then, some common sense and some clarity to the rulemaking process and actually bring it some additional transparency. Let us not play into the narrative that the rest of the country has of a dysfunctional Washington. Let us make sure that our financial regulators are actually working together and not trying to allow some to front-end each other. Let us pass this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and the bipartisan manner from Mr. Carney and Mr. Scott as well, working together to get this bill passed. And I am welcome to the debate that we are having here, but I do find it amazingly ironic that I have to come to the floor and stand here in the position of former Member Barney Frank and defend Dodd-Frank to the allegations from the other side of the aisle to the idea that there's some sort of escape hatch here, or a pole blown out, or that we're outsourcing regulation, when, in fact, if you read the legislation, you'll realize it does none of those things. Now, I understand that Dodd-Frank was a piece of legislation that was well over 2,000 pages, and maybe some who voted in favor of it did not understand the complexity of it and what was involved; but the bill before us today is only 11 pages long, so everyone should be able to have read it and understand it. So when the gentleman from Massachusetts refers to section 722(d) being affected by it and other portions of Dodd-Frank being changed by it, he should understand, by reading the 11 pages, none of Dodd-Frank or 722 or those other sections were altered in one way, shape, or form or other. What was done was to install and enforce and carry out the will of Dodd-Frank in the area to make sure that the two regulatory agencies dealing with the respective areas here, the SEC and the CFTC, actually do what former Chairman Frank wanted Dodd-Frank to do, and that is to issue a rule and issue a rule that would be effective, in their judgement, for the betterment of the economy and for the regulated entities involved. And with that, I see my time is up. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

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

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the TSA is not just for airports anymore. For years the TSA has deployed Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR teams, to conduct literally thousands upon thousands of unannounced, random sweeps of mass transit locations, ferry terminals, and highways across the country. And while VIPR teams can show up virtually anywhere at any time, these random searches are typically not in response to any specific threat whatsoever. And if you look into some of their team actions, they demonstrate this is really not security; this is just security theater. For example, back in 2011, VIPR teams searched passengers at an Amtrak station in Georgia after the people had gotten off the trains and, obviously, they served absolutely no purpose with regard to security whatsoever. And if you think that you can escape the TSA and keep some of your integrity intact by simply not going to the airport anymore, by taking a bus, a train, driving your car, well, you're sorely mistaken. VIPR teams now randomly are pulling cars and trucks off the road. They did it down on Tennessee highways where they did a search, costing the drivers there countless hours and fuel as well. And VIPR teams conducted a similar operation to search vehicles leaving a port down in Brownsville, Texas. You see, the reach of the Transportation Security Administration, the TSA, has now expanded to such other areas and has even moved beyond transportation and has moved into sports stadiums as well. How do we know that? There was an article in, if no place else, the Huffington Post, where they reported back in January that the TSA was patrolling the Metrodome in Minnesota following a Vikings/Packers game. And you have to ask yourself, to what end? A Los Angeles Times article revealed, despite conducting thousands upon thousands of operations: TSA officials say there is absolutely no proof that these roving VIPR teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. You see, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to continue to fund a program that, by its very own admission, has absolutely no record whatsoever of preventing a threat to public safety. And that is why I'm offering this amendment, to prevent funds from being made available to the VIPR teams to conduct searches outside of an airport. As we come to the floor, always as good stewards of American taxpayers, Congress should not fund the expansion of TSA responsibility, especially when we know these operations are more appropriately handled by local law enforcement agencies at the various levels of government. This, I think, is truly a commonsense approach. This is a commonsense amendment, and it helps the TSA do its core function more efficiently and protect American air travelers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. So I agree with the gentleman that we should add confidence to our travelers; but I would ask the gentleman from Texas what confidence can we have in a program that, by its own admission, says they have not foiled a singular terrorist plot; by its own admission says that they are screening people after they got off the train instead of before they get on; by its own admission says that these programs are not mandatory, and that means that when you go to a rail station, and you see them there, if you were a true terrorist then you would say, I'm not going to get in that line, I'm going to go over in that line.

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate the fact that you would take a look at this. Would that this be the first time that I brought this bill to the floor and raised the egregious examples by the TSA in the past, I would hold some more weight to that, the fact that you would look at it. But this has been going on for years now. To your point saying that we need them when there are specific threats, what TSA has told us is they're not doing this when there are specific threats. They're doing them random. They're going into sports stadiums for no particular reasons. They're going along highways for no particular reasons. They're stopping trucks for no particular reasons. Not because of a specific threat, but just because of random applications of it. If this was a situation where we said we know there was a known attack coming or something of that sort and you want to apply it there, that would be one thing. But that's not what TSA does. At this point in time, we are living in a country where, if you want to travel, you can go to the airport and they can say, you can't travel unless you go through TSA. But if I want to visit my mom in Florida, they can go to the train station and tell me I can't get on a train without going through TSA. And I can go to a bus station, and they can say I can't go on a bus without going through TSA. And I can get into my car and they can tell me that I cannot go in a car without going through TSA. We have come to a point I cannot travel in this country without some Federal agency actually stopping me.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. To the dean of the delegation and to the rest of my colleagues from New Jersey, Washington, D.C., the Senate, the Chambers will not be the same without Frank Lautenberg walking about. He is and he was a man who lived truly an extraordinary life. You've heard of his humble beginnings that Bill, I guess, knows pretty well, of his growing up in that neighborhood and going on to fight through World War II, as Leonard points out; and of that extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit. In all of those ways, he lived an extraordinary life that left an extraordinary impact upon the people of his community and the State and on all of those people who benefited from his business acumen--to be able to use that service--to the jobs that he provided and then to take that and bring it here to Washington and the benefits that he provided even far beyond his own humble beginnings back in Paterson, New Jersey, but across the country as well. So we come here today, joined in the thought that our prayers are with him, his family, his children, and grandchildren. We just hope that through this difficult time that they must be going that they can find some solace in the fact that so many people who have come here today and who are back in New Jersey respect him and appreciate him and thank him for what he did for the State.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. I rise today obviously in support of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. At a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by this administration, it is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our Nation's small businesses do not continue to drown in a sea of red tape. So this legislation specifically subjects the SEC to a more robust version of the President's own order, which requires and outlines an enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirement, as well as requires a review of existing regulations. The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act will do what? It will enhance the SEC's existing economic analysis requirements for requiring the Commission to first identify the nature of the problem that would be addressed before issuing any new regulations. While the SEC has already certain cost-benefit related requirements in current law relative to rulemaking, as indicated before, recent court decisions have vacated or remanded several of these and pointed out the deficiencies in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis. For example, recently the SEC inspector general issued a report that expressed several concerns about the quality of their analysis. They found that none of the rulemaking examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs, other than informational collection cost. This bill will ensure that the benefits of any rulemaking outweigh the cost, and that both new and existing regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. The legislation will also require the SEC to assess the cost and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating at all, and to choose the approach that basically gives us the best benefits. Under the bill, the SEC shall evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations, as well. So because some rulemaking has been politicized in the past, the bill then requires this cost-benefit analysis which I talk about will be performed by who? By the Commission's chief economist. These are commonsense reforms. They are appropriate, especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle with this issue. For instance, as already pointed out in the recent unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the Commission's proxy access rule, the Court stated: The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again adequately to assess the economic benefits of a new rule and inconsistently and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule. The bill also includes, besides all this, a section that will provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of new regulations so that post-implementation cost-benefit analysis can also be done, in addition to the pre-implementation. This will be able to better inform the true impact of the major rules once they're in place. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say these new requirements will be too costly and will open the SEC to a flood of additional lawsuits. No, no, no, no. This could be further from the truth. By having these robust standards, the rules will be drafted so well that they will be thoroughly done, they will not be struck down by the courts, and we will not have to wade through additional time and money defending them in court and then redrafting the rules, like the proxy access rule. So in the end, this is a commonsense, pragmatic approach to our rulemaking process that should have been in place all along. And with our economy struggling now with unemployment above 7\1/2\ percent, we need to ensure that we're making it easier, not harder, for businesses to begin hiring again. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, a stronger commitment to economic analysis by the SEC is absolutely essential to ensure reasonable rules do not unduly burden registered companies or negatively impact job creation.

Mr. GARRETT. I was not going to speak again until, in fact, I was being lectured on what a true conservative is by the other side of the aisle, who gave us the over 2,000-page Dodd-Frank legislation that has in fact stymied the economy, despite what the gentleman from Connecticut was saying before, that is setting literally trillions of dollars on the side, not being invested; that the unemployment rate hovers at high levels because of this stagnation in the economy because of the legislation. To the other side of the aisle, to define what a true conservative is, a true conservative would actually read the bill, as other Members of the other side of the aisle have not done. Those who could not find simple words such as ``benefit'' when it is listed many times, those who could not find the benefits to investors when it's listed multiple times. A true conservative would understand what they're talking about when they come to the floor, Mr. Chairman. A true conservative would do what's in the best interest of the economy, of the investor, of the job seekers of this country, as well. A true conservative would support this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentlelady's offer of an amendment here. I also appreciate the fact that the lady and I have often worked together on legislation in the past in our respective committee, but on this one I humbly disagree. As she says, the amendment before us basically guts the bill and simply sets forth a sense of Congress. Two points, one on policy and one on practicality. On policy, if this were the gentlelady's idea that this is the way we should go on this piece of underlying legislation, as the ranking member of the subcommittee and as a member of the full committee, she had every opportunity in the world to come before the committee at the time and put this before us, at which time we could have had a full and complete debate on it. Had we done so, we probably would have pointed out to her two things. One, she makes reference to the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion on lines 14 through 18 of her case. Would that the D.C. Circuit Court had said that the SEC is doing a good job, that they had the authority to do so and that nothing else is necessary in going forward. If she had read the opinion, she would have known that that's not quite what they said. The D.C. Circuit Court stated that the SEC, the Commission, acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed--note this--``once again''--so this is not the only time--but once again to adequately assess the economic effects of the new rule and, again, inconsistently and opportunistically framed cost benefits of the rule. So the citation that she gives of the D.C. Circuit Court does not support her position but undermines her position. The D.C. Circuit basically supports our position that the SEC has failed, and that it has failed repeatedly to do what it should do, and that is why we have the legislation before you today. And when she talks about red tape and unnecessary--well, that's not what the AFL-CIO says, and that's not what the American Bar Association says. The SEC did look at the issue of doing a retrospective look at this. They did so back over a year and a half ago, back in September of 2011, and they asked for input. What did the AFL-CIO say about that? To be effective, security regulations must be continuously updated to address the emergence of new loopholes, abuses and market failures. Likewise, the American Bar Association also chimed in about the retrospective analysis, which is what the SEC could have been doing, should have been doing, didn't do, and that is what our bill will require them to do. So I appreciate the gentlelady's efforts in this area, but I would recommend a ``no'' vote on her amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and I will simply address both the process and the policy briefly. On the process, I appreciate the gentlelady's bringing this amendment here to the floor today; but, as she knows, we were in committee for multiple hours hearing various amendments on the underlying legislation, and she had every opportunity to bring it before the entire committee at that time, and we could have had a full and complete debate and actual vote in the committee at that time. I am lost for a reason why she did not go through the regular order. But, more specifically, to the merits of the underlying bill and the amendment, if there could be anything simpler or easier than what we are trying to do in the underlying bill, H.R. 1062, Mr. Speaker, let's be real. Mr. Speaker, all we're asking the SEC to do is this: identify a problem first before you do a regulation, and then once you consider a regulation, consider all the alternatives that are out there, not just the initial one that comes forward. And then once you've passed that regulation, the next year and years after that, go back and reconsider them and make sure that they're being done effectively and they were the most efficient regulations for the economy. That's the underlying legislation, and that's why I encourage my Members to support the underlying bill. To the MTR, what is the SEC charged to do? Three, basically, core provisions: investor protection, capital formation, and efficient markets. And perhaps to the point here, one of the most important is investor protection. Who are we talking about when we're talking about investors? It's that single mom out there who is trying to raise a young girl and trying to put her into college and have money to do so. It's the young couple who wants to have financing to be able to buy their first home. It's the moms, dads, and our grandparents, the pensioners and the retirees who want to know that their investments are secure and the markets are operating efficiently. To the point here with your amendment most specifically, yes, it's the cop on the beat, it's the fireman, and it's the union worker who wants to make sure that he's investing his time and efforts into our community and his investments are taken care of in an efficient operation in the markets on Wall Street and the markets as well. That's what our bill does. All of them are taken care of in the underlying legislation. Your amendment basically says that we don't care as far as making sure the most efficient rules are concerned when it comes to the firefighters, the pensioners, or the teachers. I'll close on this. If we want to honor the firefighters, if we want to honor the police officers, and if we want to honor the teachers and the pension funds, vote ``no'' on this MTR and vote ``yes'' on the final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, today, we remember the Armenian people who lost their lives almost a century ago in the Armenian Genocide. In the first genocide of the 20th century, Ottoman officials arrested more than 200 Armenian leaders. Subsequently, 1.5 million Armenians were arrested and forced to march hundreds of miles to the present-day Syrian Desert. Men, women, and children were starved and tortured solely because of their faith and ethnicity. Yet, there are some today who still choose not to recognize the atrocities that occurred between 1915 and 1923. But we know the truth. We know there were men, women, children, and families who were detained and ordered to march into the desert. We know there were those who were forced to escape their homes in search of safety. And we know there were those who never made it out. Scripture says before you make comment about the speck in someone else's eye, remove the plank from your eye. Well, we certainly have a plank in our eye from the Administration and from the State Department, who is just refusing to do what is right in this area. So, we must first address and remove that plank in our eye and make the admission in this country and then we can call even more strongly on other countries, specifically Turkey. We must continue to remember the injustice and acts of hatred that occurred almost a century ago. By doing so, we work to prevent a repetition of atrocities. And by continuing to hold events such as the annual commemoration, we make our voices heard. I can only hope that our acknowledgement and recognition of the crimes against humanity will set an example, paving the way for a peaceful resolution between the Turkey and Armenia. Thank you.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I rise to speak about the strong relationship between the United States and South Korea, one of our most important relationships, for South Korea is one of America's closest allies in Asia and, indeed, in the entire world. Since the Korean war in the 1950s, the U.S. and South Korea have stood side by side in the name of democracy and liberty and to face down the forces of tyranny and oppression and dictatorship from North Korea and the broader world. All you need to do is to compare North and South Korea to understand how successful South Korea has been and how much of a failure the Kim regime in the North has been. South Korea is the world's 15th-largest economy and Asia's fourth- largest. Companies like Samsung, Kia, and LG are major, globally known brands, while Seoul ranks as one of the great cities of the world. South Korea is a vibrant, open society with an equally vibrant and open political system. Now take North Korea. North Korea is a kleptocratic, vicious dictatorship that tramples on the most basic rights of its citizens, all in the name of glorifying the Kim family and its cadre of jack- booted thugs. There is no freedom of choice, no freedom of religion, and no freedom to dissent from the line of the Kim regime. For the average North Korean, there is only poverty, despotism, and no hope as the regime squanders its resources on its bloated military and dangerous nuclear program.