[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 18338-18339]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         REGARDING H. RES. 417

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, December 9, 2013

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
on Asia and the Pacific--which has broad jurisdiction for U.S. foreign 
policy affecting the region, including India--I rise today to express 
my concerns about H. Res. 417 which purports to praise India's rich 
religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and equality while 
reaffirming the need to protect the rights and freedoms of religious 
minorities.
  While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who have introduced 
and co-sponsored this Resolution, I have a difference of opinion 
regarding the Resolution and its unintended consequences. The 
Resolution does little to praise India or strengthen U.S.-India 
relations but rather focuses on the 2002 Gujarat riots some 11 years 
after the fact.
  Thanks, in part, to the efforts of Mr. Sanjay Puri, Chairman of 
USINPAC, who has mobilized the Indian-American community in opposition 
to the Resolution, I highly doubt H. Res. 417 will ever see Floor 
action. However, the timing of the Resolution is unfortunate as it 
unintentionally invokes the name of the U.S. House of Representatives 
for purposes of influencing India's upcoming elections.
  For this reason, I feel the need to include my statement in the 
Congressional Record for historical purposes to clear up the 
misinformation put forward by H. Res. 417. As I said shortly after the 
riots and ever since, like every other Member of Congress committed to 
human rights I see eye to eye with the national and international 
community that what happened in Gujarat calls for justice and 
accountability. But India, like the United States, has an independent 
and transparent Judiciary and, after an investigation that has been 
ongoing for more than a decade, India's Supreme Court and its Special 
Investigation Team have not found any evidence against Chief Minister 
Narendra Modi. And so, just as the U.S. would expect India to accept 
the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court, I believe it is time for the 
U.S. to accept the findings of India's Supreme Court.
  Some 8 years after the fact, H. Res. 417 also commends the U.S. 
government for exercising its authority in 2005 under the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to deny a U.S. visa to Chief Minister 
Narendra Modi on the grounds of religious freedom violations. However, 
technically speaking, no travel ban is in place. Chief Minister Modi 
was denied one visa in 2005. In September 2013, in response to a letter 
I sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, I was informed by the 
State Department that visa eligibility is determined by standards in 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based on information provided 
by the applicant or otherwise available at the time of application, and 
that ``any future visa application put forward by Chief Minister Modi 
will be carefully considered and adjudicated in accordance with U.S. 
law.'' While I believe such a response by the State Department is 
grossly inadequate and an affront to U.S.-India relations because of 
its failure to unequivocally put this matter to rest, the underlying 
message is clear. No travel ban is in place.
  Shri Narendra Modi may very well be India's next Prime Minister, and 
Resolutions like H. Res. 417 do little to help strengthen U.S.-India 
relations or protect and promote U.S. interests abroad, especially in 
the Asia Pacific region. For the record, Chief Minister Modi is a 
democratically elected leader. He has been elected three times by the 
majority of some 60 million constituents.
  In India's upcoming 2014 elections, every voter should have the 
continued right to choose the candidate which emerges as the man of 
destiny, without undue influence from

[[Page 18339]]

the United States or any other government. This is why I commend 
USINPAC for working with key leaders in the U.S. House of 
Representatives to set the record straight about Slui Narendra Modi, 
and for encouraging Members of Congress to open immediate dialogue with 
the Chief Minister.
  I thank Chairman Ed Royce of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
for also voicing his objections to H. Res. 417. India is a multi-
cultural and multi-religious Democracy, where the Leader of the Ruling 
party is of Italian heritage, the Prime Minister is a Sikh, and the 
Vice President is a Muslim in an 80 percent Hindu nation. As the 
world's largest and oldest democracies, our inherent values and 
substance bind India and the United States together. Therefore, it is 
my sincere hope that the U.S. House of Representatives will oppose any 
effort that seeks to tear us apart.

                          ____________________