Priorities

A. Protect our treasures from grasping foreign authoritarians.

Contest efforts to make it easier for the government to seize and forfeit art and antiquities deemed cultural property long in U.S. collections based on obscure foreign laws. Oppose efforts to gain U.S. Government recognition for claims of authoritarian regimes to the personal and community property of displaced religious and ethnic minorities.

• Archaeological advocacy groups with ties to foreign authoritarian governments lobbied for the introduction of last term’s proposed Terrorism Art and Antiquity Revenue Prevention Act (“TAAR”) as an anti-terrorist financing measure.  That bill would have dramatically lowered the bar for criminal prosecutions based on other nations’ cultural patrimony laws.  TAAR empowered federal prosecutors to charge individuals for possession of any object valued over $50 illegally removed from another country.  As proposed, the bill would have turned millions of collectors, thousands of small businesses that trade in art and antiquities, and hundreds of museums into criminals overnight. 
• TAAR died at the end of the last Congressional session, but is expected to be reintroduced in some form this term.  We oppose criminal liability being predicated on obscure foreign laws, particularly those of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes.  To the extent such laws should be honored here at all, any liability should only be prospective and based on foreign laws accessible on public web sites that vest clear title in a foreign country and which are consistently enforced at home.
• At the behest of the well-funded and politically connected archaeological lobby, the U.S. State Department has entered into a series of cultural property agreements or Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) with authoritarian Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) governments. These MOUs provide de-facto recognition to these regimes claims to the communal and personal property of Jewish & Christian minorities
• Global Heritage Alliance opposes these efforts and is working with representatives of these minority groups to contest these efforts and to protect the rights of minorities and others to their own personal and community property.

B. Facilitate lawful trade in cultural artifacts openly and legally available for sale abroad. 

The Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”) limits the President’s authority to enter into Memorandums of Understanding (“MOUs”) with other countries that contemplate imposing import restrictions on cultural goods.  The CPIA makes entering into such MOUS contingent upon:

• A specific request that “must be accompanied by a written statement of facts known to the [1970 UNESCO Convention] State Party.” CPIA, 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a) (3).
• Specific findings that: (a)  any restricted archaeological artifacts were “first discovered within” and are “subject to export control” by the State Party seeking restrictions (Id. § 2601 (2) (C)); (b) any restricted archaeological artifacts are of “cultural significance” and any restricted ethnological objects are “the product of a tribal or non-industrial society”  and “important” to the “cultural heritage of a people”  (Id. § 2601 (2) (C) (i) (I)) and (ii) (II); (c) less drastic remedies than import restrictions are unavailable (Id. § 2602 (a) (1) (C) (ii)); and (d) any restrictions are part of a “concerted international response” of other State Parties to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. Id. § 2602 (a) (1) (C) (i).  
• Moreover, the CPIA set up a panel of experts, the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“CPAC”), to assist the President in his decision making.  Id. § 2605.
• In practice, the State Department (which has received a presidential delegation of authority) ignores all these limitations and instead imposes the broadest possible import restrictions in the interests of promoting “good will” with other countries.  CPAC was set up to help ensure the decision maker would balance restrictions against the benefits in terms of people to people contacts and the appreciation of other cultures collecting fosters.  Unfortunately, CPAC is currently packed with supporters of the archaeological lobby’s extremist views.  Moreover, archaeological advocacy groups’ support for broad restrictions have given the State Department political cover from the charge that import restrictions only disadvantage American citizens, museums and small businesses without having more than a negligible impact on looting.  
• We will advocate to ensure membership of CPAC reflects the interests of the public, the trade and museums rather than solely the interests of the archaeological lobby.  
• We will advocate moving CPAC to the Commerce Department to end built in conflict of interest in having the State Department administer program as a quid pro quo for other State Department initiatives and/or based on cronyism between staff and archaeological lobby.  
• We will propose legislative fixes to facilitate lawful trade in cultural artifacts on designated lists openly and legally available for sale and export in other UNESCO state parties.

C. End embargos so they don’t hurt legitimate collecting. 

• The CPIA only authorizes import restrictions on objects of archeological or ethnological interest first discovered within and subject to export control of a specific UNESCO State Party, and such objects may only be seized if they were exported from that State Party after the date they were “designated” in regulations,
• U.S. Customs ignores these limitations on its authority.  Import restrictions are drafted based on place of manufacture in the past rather than find spot as provided in statute.  Moreover, seizures are made based on date of import into the U.S. rather than on a showing that the cultural property was illicitly exported after the date objects were designated.  This has changed the entire focus of the CPIA from targeted restrictions meant to prevent looting of archaeological sites into an embargo on all objects made by a particular culture in the past.  
• We will encourage Congressional oversight over the U.S. Customs implementation of import restrictions.