[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E49]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        H.R. 2930, THE STOP ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                   HON. AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 19, 2022

  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.

                          ____________________