PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 1, 2012
Recognizes the suffering of all those persons who were affected by the 2002 violence in Gujarat, India, including those persons who lost their lives in the Godhra train fire.
Shares the Department of State opinion that the Gujarat government has not adequately pursued justice for the victims of the violence, and remains concerned by reports about Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's complicity in such violence.
Commends the U.S. government for denying a visa to Minister Modi in 2005.
Applauds the Department of State and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for their monitoring of religious freedom in India and throughout the world.
Commends the role of the Indian police officers, the media, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Indian Supreme Court in investigating the violence.
Recognizes the work of Indian and Indian-American civil society groups for educating people about human rights and religious freedom in India.
Calls on the Gujarat government to restore religious freedom in Gujarat.
People & committees
Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia .
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 28, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.569 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.569 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.569 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.569 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.