H.R. the Stop Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Madam Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor of H.R. 2930, The STOP Act, to celebrate the House's passage of this important legislation and to express my disappointment over the fears that led to 57 of my colleagues voting against the bill and will lay out the facts to dispel those fears. The fact is the bill incorporates the concerns of the various stakeholders impacted by the legislation. This melding of concerns was eloquently stated on the House floor by Chairwoman Leger Fernandez, The STOP Act's sponsor who told the House that: ``This version reflects negotiations with Tribal leaders, Federal agency experts, and the Authentic Tribal Art Dealers Association,'' all of whom are impacted by the legislation. Chairwoman Leger Fernandez comments on the melding of stakeholder concerns were reinforced by Ranking Member Westerman on the House floor when he stated: ``I want to thank the sponsor of the legislation for working with stakeholders impacted by this bill, including the Acoma, the Pueblo, the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and others.'' Clearly, there was bipartisan recognition that the concerns expressed by the bill's various stakeholders were legitimate and had to be incorporated into the final product. I am providing here, for the record, the ways in which The STOP Act meets the concerns of all the stakeholders mentioned by Chairwoman Leger Fernandez and Ranking Member Westerman, which should dispel the fears of those opposed to bill. For starters, the bill does not ban all exports of Native American items as some fear. The bill only prohibits the export of items in violation of NAGPRA and ARPA, no other items for export are prohibited. In fact, the bill clearly states: ``an item made solely for commercial purposes is presumed to not qualify as an Item Requiring Export Certification;'' while an additional provision specifies that Certification requirements be ``sufficiently specific precise to ensure that an export certification is required only for Items Requiring Export Certification.'' Clearly, the bill provides for a targeted ban on the export of illegal items, not the broad ban opponents fear. The facts dispel the fear that certification provenance requirements would lead to a de-facto export ban given the limited provenance of many items. The fact is the bill explicitly states: ``include all available information regarding the provenance,'' so the bill clearly only requires ``available information'' and does not require the historical provenance of the item. Finally, opponents fear that The STOP Act placed the burden of proof on the citizen, not the government. In fact, the bill had no need to address this issue. It is a foundational principal of our democratic system of laws and governance that the burden of proof is on the government, not the citizen. In conclusion, I would like to, once again, congratulate the House for passing The Stop Act and urge all to consider these facts.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source