[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 164 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8023-H8026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN AND SINDH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Arrington). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman) for 30 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for yielding me 30 minutes,
more than enough time to deliver three separate speeches that I have
prepared for presentation. The first two are informed, or two of these
speeches are informed. The first and the third are informed by my 20
years of experience on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the second
speech I will deliver is informed by 40 years as a CPA in the world of
taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member on the Asia and the Pacific
Subcommittee and the founder of the Sindh Caucus. In those two roles, I
have focused on human rights and the rule of law in Pakistan, and
particularly in its perhaps largest province, Sindh, comprising most of
southern Pakistan.
We have dedicated ourselves in the Sindh Caucus to efforts to
preserve the culture and the language of the Sindhi people, and
particularly their dedication to religious tolerance. Unfortunately,
the human rights picture in Pakistan and in Sindh are not good.
I would like to say a few words about the disappearance of Punhal
Sario, the leader of the Voice for Missing Persons of Sindh movement,
and about the very serious problem of disappearances in Sindh in
southern Pakistan.
Just this past summer, Punhal Sario led a march between Sindh's two
major cities, Hyderabad to Karachi, demanding accountability for Sindhi
activists who have been abducted by Pakistani security forces or simply
disappeared.
Where is Punhal now? It appears that he, too, has fallen victim to
the very serious forces that he marched against.
{time} 1730
Punhal's case is hardly an isolated one. The Human Rights Commission
of Pakistan reported that over 700 people disappeared, were kidnapped,
and never heard of again in Pakistan in the year 2016 alone.
In the past year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, and the State Department's own
Report on Human Rights have all noted serious concerns about
extrajudicial and targeted killings and disappearances in Pakistan and,
particularly, in Sindh.
Elements of the government or military see an opportunity to simply
make their opponents disappear. Here are a few particulars. In 2016,
Amnesty International reported that the Pakistani security forces had,
and these are their words, ``committed human rights violations with
almost total impunity.''
While Human Rights Watch observed that, ``law enforcement and
security agencies remained unaccountable for human rights violations.''
The State Department itself noted in Pakistan, ``the most serious
human rights problems were extrajudicial and targeted killings
disappearances, torture, the lack of the rule of law.''
Two years ago, in 2015, Sindhi leader Dr. Anwar Laghari was brutally
murdered in Pakistan. Days before his death, he had sent a memorandum
to President Barack Obama about human rights violations by the
Pakistani military and its ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence,
agency, an important part of the Pakistani military.
I attended a memorial service for Dr. Laghari here in Washington and
have come to know of his work for human rights for the Sindhi people of
southern Pakistan. The Pakistani Government has not been responsive to
numerous inquiries into the reason for Dr. Laghari's death and for why
his perpetrators have not been brought to justice.
Two months ago, on August 18, I sent a letter to the Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs and the U.S.
Ambassador to Pakistan expressing strong concerns about human rights
violations of the Pakistani Government in Sindh. Six of my House
colleagues--three Democrats and three Republicans--joined me in that
effort.
There are other human rights concerns in Pakistan that I should also
bring to the attention of this House. The people of Sindh face
religious extremist attacks. ISIS, for example, claimed responsibility
for an attack on a Sufi shrine in Sindh that killed 80 people. Yet the
government has not acted to protect religious minorities and, in
general, has not acted to protect the people of Sindh from Islamic
extremism.
In addition, in Sindh, there are forced conversions of Sindhi girls
belonging to minority communities.
[[Page H8024]]
While the numbers are unclear, reports suggest that every year perhaps
1,000 girls and young women in Pakistan, including many in Sindh, are
forcibly converted upon a marriage, not of their choice, to Muslim men.
The Pakistani Government has not done enough to stop this practice, and
reform measures have been circumvented and not enforced.
Human rights abuses of this type cannot go unanswered. Activists
disappear under suspicious circumstances. It is our obligation to speak
out and demand accountability. These disappearances and other
violations of human rights should be a major topic of conversation in
all bilateral discussions between our government and the government in
Islamabad.
Tax Proposal Deletes Deductions
Mr. SHERMAN. Now, Mr. Speaker I would like to move on to a second
speech, one dealing with the tax proposal of the Trump administration.
The provisions I would like to focus on chiefly are those involving
taking away the deductions, the itemized deductions that so many
Americans take to reduce their tax liability.
Now, these deductions are eliminated on the theory that, oh, they
just go to the wealthy, and, for those purposes, they define the
wealthy as the wealthiest 30 percent or so of the American people--say
a family with an income of $100,000 or $150,000. We are told that is
the same thing as increasing taxes on the top one-tenth of 1 percent,
say a family with an income of $1 million or $2 million a year.
There is a difference in the ability to pay of those two typical
families, typifying their income brackets. The fact is, that taxing
hardworking families with incomes of $100,000 or $150,000, in order to
provide reduced tax rates for those with incomes of $1 million or $2
million, makes our tax system more regressive. You cannot put the
entire top 30 percent in one category for these income calculations.
That is why, and that is only one reason why, I oppose the
elimination of the home mortgage deduction. Another reason that I
oppose it is elimination of the home mortgage deduction and reduction
for local property taxes will probably decrease the value of homes by
20 percent, is the best estimate I have seen.
Well, if you lose 20 percent of the value of your home, you may very
well lose all of the equity in your home. How is that going to affect
the economy? How is that going to affect the ability of homeowners to
go and spend money in their communities and support the economy of
their communities?
What does it do to the Federal budget when we are responsible through
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for underwriting home mortgages? We know
that if you wipe out the equity of many homeowners in their homes, this
can lead to defaults and cost the Federal Government perhaps more than
we give up by having a home mortgage deduction.
Another element to keep in mind is that the entire idea of an income
tax is that we tax people based on their ability to pay. If you are in
a State with high income taxes, high property taxes, that diminishes
your ability to pay. If you make a certain salary and money is taken
out by your State government before you ever see it, your ability to
pay is only on that net paycheck.
It is simply wrong to take away the deduction for State and local
taxes. But make no mistake about it, the purpose of removing that
deduction is not just to hurt the top 30, or 40 percent, or 50 percent
of the American people who itemize their deductions, it is designed to
punish those who are dependent on State and local government.
All the conservative theorists say: If we can just eliminate the
deduction for State and local taxes, we will cut the size of State and
local governments. We will create a political atmosphere in which they
slash money for local schools, slash money for local health programs
for the poor, slash money for police.
Who will be hurt from those cuts? Not just the top 30 percent or 50
percent, but everyone in America, most particularly, the poor.
Finally, I want to focus on the medical deduction. They take away the
medical deduction in this program, this proposal of the Trump
administration. Now, keep in mind that we already have severe limits on
deducting medical expenses. You can deduct medical expenses only if
they exceed 10 percent of your family's income. So medical expenses are
itemized and deducted only by those families including someone with
very significant health costs.
Now, we have worked hard in this House to make sure that people have
health insurance. But even with health insurance, there are copays;
there are deductibles. These can be absorbed in a family budget where
no one has a particular strong medical need. But what if there is some
member of the family who needs experimental treatments that are not
covered, therapies that are not covered?
Under the present system, at least they get to deduct these
extraordinary--not the first 10 percent of AGI, of adjusted gross
income--but when they start spending out-of-pocket costs in excess of
10 percent income, they can take a tax deduction--a tax deduction taken
away in the Trump tax proposal.
I speak not just as someone who spent a lot of time as a tax expert
who headed the second largest tax agency in the country, but as the
father of a child with special needs. What does this tax proposal mean
for such a family? Well, first, there is a cut in Federal revenue under
this proposal of between $150 billion and $200 billion a year. Deficit
hawks will demand that these revenue cuts be matched by cuts to Federal
spending.
What does that do to the $13 billion the Federal Government dedicates
to the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, IDEA, also known as special education? And what do these cuts in
our Federal expenditures mean to the $293 million that are spent by the
National Institutes of Health on research designed to prevent and treat
autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, ADHD?
So the first impact on a family with special needs is a slashing of
the money the Federal Government spends for special education and
medical research. But second, I talked about those out-of-pocket
medical expenses. Parents with special-needs children know that health
insurance pays only a portion of what is needed, or perhaps none of
what is needed, for behavioral therapy, speech therapy, occupational
therapy, physical therapy, developmental pediatricians,
neuropsychological services, et cetera.
Medical insurance will pay nothing toward anything branded an
experimental treatment, and, of course, medical insurance does not
cover special schools required to meet the needs of some special-needs
children.
Under current law, a special school designed to meet those with a
physical or mental handicap are considered medical expenses. All of
these tax deductions are taken away from a family whose ability to pay
is diminished by the costs of providing these therapies to a special-
needs child.
In addition, right now, the tax law provides a personal exemption of
$4,050 for each dependent child. The Trump administration proposal
takes that away. It does say, in some vague language, that there will
be a child tax credit to compensate parents who are losing the personal
exemption. But this credit will be limited to children 16 years of age
and younger.
So what about parents supporting children in their teenage years, and
older? Remember, some special-needs children will need parental support
for a lifetime. Those parents lose the exemption and are ineligible for
this credit available only to parents of younger children.
But perhaps parents of children with special needs should support the
Trump tax program. While it will tremendously increase their taxes,
while it will cut Federal expenditures on special education and on
health research and medical research, parents of children with special
needs can take solace in knowing that this plan will reduce taxes for
the Trump family by over $1 billion in estate taxes and by tens of
millions of dollars in income tax.
Perhaps we should tell parents of special-needs children that they
should stop worrying so much about their children and start worrying
about Donald Trump's children. If they did, they would support the
Trump tax proposal.
Iran Nuclear Control Deal
Mr. SHERMAN. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue
of
[[Page H8025]]
Iran and the nuclear deal, nuclear control deal that we signed with
Iran.
First, a little background. In 1997, I said at the Foreign Affairs
Committee that Iran and its nuclear program were the number one threat
to American national security.
{time} 1745
For the last 20 years, I have supported every effort to impose
sanctions on the Iranian regime. When the Iran nuclear deal was
finalized and published, I was the first of either party to come to
this floor and say that Congress should not vote to endorse that deal.
But the question before us now is: Should we renounce the deal?
Now, it would be one thing if Iran decides that we are so tough on
them on other issues that they choose to renounce the deal, but that is
not the issue before us today. The issue before us today is whether
America should renounce the deal, and the resounding and clear answer
is that is not something we should do at this time.
Now, I will give you an example. Let's say you bought a flawed
automobile. In some jurisdictions, you take back the automobile and you
get back your money. But what opponents--what some are proposing now is
that we renounce the deal. Imagine you are in a jurisdiction where you
have to take back the car and the dealer keeps your money, too. Taking
back the car doesn't look like such a good idea anymore.
Now, like a flawed automobile, the Iran nuclear deal is liable to not
be working next decade. But that doesn't mean you take back the car and
the dealer keeps the money.
What happens if we renounce the deal?
Iran keeps the money. We unfroze very roughly $100 billion of their
money. If we renounce the deal, they keep the money. We delivered over
$1 billion in currency on big pallets. If we renounce the deal, Iran
keeps the money. If we renounce the deal, Iran is liberated from all of
the restrictions that it agreed to on its nuclear program.
I opposed the deal because the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program
in the deal were temporary. I believe we need to extend and enforce
those limitations on their nuclear program. If you listen to the Prime
Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, he has identified the fact that we
have not been able to extend and make permanent the limitations on
Iran's nuclear program as the chief flaw in the deal and the chief
thing to correct to turn it into a better deal.
But if we renounce the deal, we don't extend and enforce the
limitations on Iran's nuclear program, we end and eliminate immediately
the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program. I cannot think of a worse
result.
Now, there are two mechanisms that we could use as a nation to
renounce the deal, give Iran all the benefits, and liberate them from
all their obligations. The first of these is on our mind now because it
could be triggered on October 15. That is the day on which the
President could, in effect, decertify this deal under the Iran Nuclear
Review Act. I hope that, if he does that, the press will not overplay
it, because a decertification does nothing more than focus Congress'
attention on whether we want to reinstitute the exact sanctions that
were waived as part of the nuclear deal. A decertification does nothing
more than focus our attention and, over in the Senate, provide for a
reinstitution of the old sanctions.
Now, I don't think that Congress would be stupid enough to do that
because, as I have explained, if we renounce the deal, Iran keeps the
benefits and is liberated from its obligations.
But the President should not decertify the deal and focus the world's
attention on whether America will stand with the deal at this time.
The second way that America could renounce the deal will occur next
January because the basic element of the deal--the basic thing Iran got
from the United States--was an agreement that the President would,
every 4 months to 6 months, it depends on the exact statute, waive
particular identified sanctions. As it happens, the existing waivers
all expire in the middle of next January. If the President were to fail
to issue those waivers, that would be an American renunciation of the
deal. So it does not meet our national security objectives to renounce
the deal.
What meets our national security objectives is to impose tough
sanctions on Iran, draft those sanctions carefully, and explain them to
the world not as a renunciation of the deal, but as appropriate
sanctions given Iran's non-nuclear, outside-the-deal, wrongful
behavior.
Now, the question is: Can we have sanctions on Iran and continue to
force them to abide by the deal?
The answer is clearly yes.
In July of 2015, Secretary Kerry came before our committee, and I
raised this very issue: If we adopt the deal, can we impose sanctions
on the Central Bank of Iran to deter terrorism? Or would that violate
this agreement?
I specifically asked: Are Congress and the United States free under
the agreement to adopt new sanctions legislation that will remain in
force as long as Iran holds American hostages or supports the murderous
Assad regime?
Secretary Kerry's answers were clear. He stated: We are free to adopt
additional sanctions as long as they are not a phony excuse for just
taking the whole pot of past ones and putting them back.
So we can and should impose new sanctions on Iran to the extent
justified by Iran's behavior outside the area of nuclear research and
uranium enrichment. Look at that as an opportunity because you could
make a list of every sanction any one of us here on this floor has
thought of. And add in the creativity of the United States Senate and
make a list of every sanction we could impose, I assure you that those
sanctions and more are justified by the non-nuclear evil committed by
the regime in Tehran.
Iran is more responsible than Russia for the hundreds of thousands of
deaths in Syria. The lifeline of Assad's murderous regime is a lifeline
to the aid, money, weapons, thugs, and training that Iran has
provided--hundreds of thousands of deaths, an immoral responsibility of
the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Turn to Yemen, where tens of thousands of people have died because of
Iran. Look at worldwide terrorism, and Iran is the number one state
sponsor of terrorism year after year, according to our State
Department. Look at the treatment by Iran of its own people, the
murders by the state of anyone they identify as being part of the LGBT
community, the murders by the state of women--it is usually women--
accused of adultery.
The evil that comes from the Islamic Republic far exceeds the ability
of this House to identify sanction points. That is why the proper
policy for the United States is to impose the maximum sanctions and to
explain to the world that this is not a phony renunciation of the
nuclear deal, but it is the appropriate response to Iran's actions that
are outside of the nuclear deal.
If we do that, we will have substantial support from Europe, Asia,
and elsewhere first for demanding that Iran continue to be subject to
all the nuclear limitations and inspections that they agreed to under
the deal and which continue to be enforced well in the next decade.
What we shall do next decade, well, I will come back here and give
another speech next decade. But at least many years deep in the next
decade, this deal provides us with valuable limitations and valuable
inspections of the Iran nuclear program, and Europe will insist that
those be adhered to.
Second, Europe may join us in the sanctions when we sanction Iran for
its actions in Syria, its actions to its own people, its actions in
Yemen. One more I should add, and that is Iran's violation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions by testing and developing missiles and
exporting weapons.
So if we stick with the deal and we sanction Iran, they may choose--
if those sanctions are as effective as I think they can be--to walk
away from the deal. But if they do, we will have the whole world with
us enforcing sanctions against Iran.
Now, there is one part of the policy I put forward that may not meet
the psychological needs of the President of the United States, for he
has shown an uncontrollable personal need to pour disgusting liquids on
anything associated with President Obama. Maybe it
[[Page H8026]]
meets his psychological needs to say he is renouncing the nuclear deal.
But the fact is we don't have to renounce the nuclear deal and liberate
Iran from its obligations in order to impose the toughest imaginable
sanctions on this regime that is doing so much evil.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________