PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2016
Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act of 2016
This bill increases the maximum term of imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years for individuals convicted more than once of illegal trafficking in Native American human remains or cultural items.
This bill bans the export of illegally obtained Native American cultural objects and sets penalties for violations of this ban.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A person is immune from criminal prosecution under laws regarding Native American cultural objects if the person voluntarily repatriates to the appropriate tribe all the Native American cultural objects in the person's possession not later than two years after enactment of this bill. This immunity does not apply to a person under active investigation or prosecution relating to Native American cultural objects.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must report on the number of Native American cultural objects illegally trafficked and the extent to which the Department of Justice has prosecuted cases of trafficking. The GAO must recommend actions to eliminate such trafficking and to secure the repatriation of Native American cultural objects.
The Department of the Interior must facilitate the convention of a working group to contribute information to the GAO report and to advise on implementation of the GAO's recommendations.
People & committees
Rep. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM-3] · D–NM
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 Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2026. 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.R.5854 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.R.5854 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.R.5854 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.R.5854 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.