U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–308PDF 2015

POACHING AND TERRORISM: A NATIONAL

SECURITY CHALLENGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 22, 2015

Serial No. 114–25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Judith G. Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Oceans and International and Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. 

Department of State ............................................................................................ 11

Mr. Robert Dreher, Associate Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 22

The Honorable John Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice ................................. 31

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and 

Trade: Material submitted for the record .......................................................... 5

The Honorable Judith G. Garber: Prepared statement ........................................ 14

Mr. Robert Dreher: Prepared statement ................................................................ 24

The Honorable John Cruden: Prepared statement ............................................... 33

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

(1)

POACHING AND TERRORISM: A NATIONAL 

SECURITY CHALLENGE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. POE. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject 

to the length limitations in the rules. 

I will proceed with my opening statement. Elephant and rhino 

populations in Africa are being decimated by poachers looking for 

high profits with little risk and little consequences. Between 1990 

and 2005, poachers killed an average of 14 rhinos each year in 

South Africa. In 2013 and again in 2014, they killed over 1,000 

rhinos each year. The black rhino population has declined by 93 

percent since the 1960s. A total of only five white rhinos are left 

in the whole world today. Elephants are in just as much trouble. 

And I have a slide, and members of the panel also have this poster 

in front of you somewhere that you can refer to. 

As you can see from this map by National Geographic, there 

were approximately 1.3 million elephants in Africa in 1979. The 

light brown areas are where elephants roamed in 1979. The dark 

brown areas are where they roamed in 2007. The dark brown areas 

are just a fraction of the light brown areas. We see that the elephants and their population are being diminished considerably. 

I also have a poster here of Satao, the elephant. Some say he was 

the oldest elephant in Africa. We don’t know. His tusks were so 

long that they hit the ground before poachers got to him and killed 

him for the tusk and left the rest of him in Africa. 

The elephant population has dropped 60 percent since 1979, and 

poaching numbers rise. Why? It is all about the money. The black 

market price of ivory in Africa is anywhere between $1,000 and 

$1,800 per pound. A rhino horn is now worth about $60,000 per 

kilogram. That is 2.2 pounds. That is twice the value of gold and 

platinum and more than cocaine or diamonds. In all, the illegal 

wildlife trade is estimated as a $10 billion to $20 billion a year 

business. With all the money, it is no surprise that poachers are 

using more advanced weaponry that leaves park rangers looking 

2

like Little Bo Peep trying to fight against Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

Poachers can now swoop down in the dead of night in helicopters, 

with high-powered rifles. Even if the traffickers are caught and 

convicted, the penalties are far less than if the traffickers were convicted of crimes in drug trafficking. Punishments in most countries 

are little more than a slap on the wrist or none at all. Low risk 

and high profits make for a deadly combination. 

Demand is being driven mainly from the Asian countries. Once 

again, there is a slide in front of our panelists, and it is on the 

monitor for those in the audience. This map is from an NGO called 

TRAFFIC. The main ivory seizures follow trade routes from Africa 

to Asia. Ivory is shipped out in places like Tanzania, Kenya, and 

South Africa; trafficked through the Philippines and Malaysia; and 

ends up in Thailand and, yes, China as well. 

Vietnam is the largest consumer of rhino horns that are poached. 

Users there believe the rhino horn can cure everything from cancer 

to hangovers. Many see it as a status symbol. I understand the 

rhino horn is ground down into a powder and put in different products and is sold at an expensive rate. People want it because there 

is a demand. They believe there is some magic, so to speak, or benefit from the rhino horn powder. 

Criminals and thugs are not the only bad actors involved in this 

dirty business, and that is what this hearing is about today. Terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, 

the LRA, and others, are all involved in poaching. We do not know 

to what extent these groups are involved, how much money they 

make off of poaching, or their interactions with criminal and smuggling groups. We can’t solve the problem if we don’t understand it. 

The intelligence community needs to commit more resources to 

understand this problem. The Obama administration released a 

strategy to combat wildlife trafficking in 2014, February. It took 

another year to develop an implementation plan to execute the 

strategy. The strategy and the implementation plan are important 

steps in the right direction, but we need to do a whole lot more. 

While there are sections devoted to measuring progress, nowhere 

in the plan is there a commitment to rigorous evaluations. Impact 

of those evaluations are the only way that we can know if our programs are working. Nor is there a timeline mentioned anywhere in 

the plan. 

The Achilles’ heel of the implementation plan could be its lack 

of dedicated resources. The administration needs to have a crosscutting budget that will outline exactly how much money we are 

spending on anti-poaching efforts. 

There are other steps we can take. One easy step is to increase 

the penalty for those caught trafficking wildlife so as not to let 

them come into the United States. A consular official should be 

able to reject a visa for those that have been convicted of wildlife 

trafficking. The Treasury Department should aggressively sanction 

wildlife traffickers. This does not need to be an act of Congress. 

The administration has the authority to do this. 

The problem is so bad that those in Africa that are trying to enforce the law have very little resources. They are unarmed. Several 

of the rangers that work in these national parks are murdered each 

year. The bad guys have, as I mentioned, helicopters, automatic 

3

weapons. They shoot these animals from the air, and there is very 

little defense against them that is being taking place in my opinion. 

We need to empower law enforcement. Right now a drug trafficker’s profit is going to help a designated foreign terrorist organization, and our law enforcement can go after the drug trafficker regardless of whether or not there is a nexus back to the U.S. We 

now know wildlife trafficking money goes to help terrorists, like the 

drug money does. We should change U.S. Law so law enforcement 

can go after wildlife traffickers just like it can go after international drug traffickers. 

Strengthening law enforcement and reducing demand is a solution to this problem, but it will not be quick. If we don’t act, terrorists will keep taxiing in big profits while driving elephants and 

rhinos into extinction. Meanwhile, they find money to further their 

terrorist enterprises throughout the world. 

I will now yield to the ranking member. I didn’t say Yankee 

member. I said ranking member. 

Mr. KEATING. As long you didn’t say Yankee member. 

Mr. POE. For his opening statement. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for conducting this hearing. 

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today. It 

is important we have each of the co-chairs of the President’s Task 

Force on Combating Wildlife Trafficking this afternoon. We understand your schedule is in very high demand, and we appreciate 

your willingness to accommodate this important hearing. As we 

honor Earth Day today, it is particularly timely that this afternoon’s hearing will discuss an integral facet of international conservation effects. 

Illicit trade in wildlife is a serious global environmental crime 

with significant negative impacts for endangered species protection, 

ecosystem stability, and biodiversity conservation. Unfortunately, 

this problem is only growing. It is estimated that illegal wildlife 

trafficking is the fourth largest global illegal activity after only narcotics, counterfeiting, and human trafficking. 

Of particular concern is the rise in demand for products from illegally poached animals, particularly from elephants and rhinoceroses in China, Vietnam, and other destination countries. This has 

dramatically increased the prices and led to a rapid expansion of 

illicit markets. In fact, this illegal trade is believed to have more 

than doubled since 2007. The black market price of rhino horn is 

over $30,000 per pound, more than the value of platinum, and 

poaching is bringing rhinoceroses to the edge of extinction. 

Wildlife trafficking is also a real and increasing threat to our national security. Ivory like so many blood diamonds, is funding 

many armed fighters in Africa. Reports indicate that terrorists and 

militant groups—such as Al Shabaab in Somalia; the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Central Africa; and Janjaweed in Sudan and 

Chad—are involved in poaching elephants and dealing in ivory. 

There are also reports that militants affiliated with Al Qaeda are 

involved in the illegal trade of ivory, tiger pelts, and rhino horns 

in India, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. 

4

Further, much of the global illegal trade in wildlife is run by 

transitional criminal organizations, which are attracted to wildlife 

trafficking because of its low risk of detection, high profits, and 

weak penalties. These organized criminal groups often use smuggling routes, money-laundering schemes, and other techniques 

similar to those of drug traffickers. 

According to the U.S. intelligence community, the illicit ivory and 

rhino horn trade is enabled by official corruption in many source 

countries which undermines the rule of law and contributes to border instability. There are even reported instances where government military forces are directly involved in poaching and wildlife 

trafficking, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South 

Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. And it is important that 

we do not overlook the role of illegal, unreported, and unregulated 

fishing, including shark finning and how that plays to the condition, and how it surrounds additional illicit activity, including piracy, smuggling, and illegal trafficking of weapons and people. 

Each year it is estimated that 100 million sharks are killed, and 

stripped of their fins, to meet demand for shark fin soup, a delicacy 

in fine menus across China. 

Indeed, these activities are inexorably linked with illegal fishing 

activities often supported by forced labor and human trafficking of 

migrant traffickers and children, both in the oceans and the Great 

Lakes region in Africa. The United States needs to know more 

about these links between militant groups, transnational organized 

crime, and corrupt state actors in the illegal wildlife trade. 

In responding to this growing environmental and national security threat, I am encouraging the administration’s recent implementation plan giving effect of the National Security Strategy for 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking. I look forward to learning more 

today about our progress and meeting the objectives of this implementation plan, particularly with respect to efforts to assist our 

international partners in strengthening global enforcement and reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife. 

I also look forward to an update on the potential changes to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations and further restrictions 

surrounding ivory trade within the United States and whether 

these regulations will provide clarity for antiques and other proper 

commercial and educational uses of ivory. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

I want to introduce into the record an article that was written 

today in Business Insider by Gretchen Peters and Juan Zarate. 

[The information referred to follows:]

5


94308e-1.eps
6


94308e-2.eps
7


94308e-3.eps
8


94308e-4.eps
9


94308e-5.eps
10


94308e-6.eps
11

You probably know these individuals. I will just read two short 

sentences: On Earth Day 2015, prospects for many of the planet’s 

most iconic species are bleak. Unless poaching rates deadline 

across Africa, the rhino and elephant will be extinct within a decade. The world has lost 97 percent of its tigers in the last 50 years, 

and the great apes are on the pace to disappear within a generation. It is a national security crisis. 

Anyway, I will now introduce our three experts: Ambassador Judith Garber is Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans 

and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State. Ambassador Garber has held diplomatic positions all over the world, including serving as the U.S. Ambassador 

to Latvia. 

Robert Dreher is Associate Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service at the Department of the Interior. Before joining the Fish 

and Wildlife, Mr. Dreher served as acting assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the 

Department of Justice. 

Mr. John Cruden is the new Acting Assistant Attorney General 

for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Mr. Cruden has a long history of public service 

at the Department of Justice and in the military. 

Ambassador Garber, we will start with you for your opening 

statement of 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JUDITH G. GARBER, ACTING 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Poe and Ranking Member Keating. I 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. With 

your permission, I would like to submit my written statement for 

the record. 

Mr. POE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. 

Ambassador GARBER. At the outset, let me extend my thanks to 

the subcommittee for holding this hearing today, which marks the 

45th anniversary of Earth Day. Events are being planned today in 

the United States and around the world, including by our missions 

overseas to raise awareness and concern for the environment, including wildlife. Wildlife trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar criminal enterprise that poses a serious and urgent threat to conservation and national security. The increasing involvement of armed 

groups and criminal elements of all kinds, including some terrorist 

entities, threatens the peace and security of fragile regions, 

strengthens illicit trade routes, and destabilizes economies and 

communities that depend on wildlife for their livelihoods. 

Recognizing the scale and seriousness of this problem, I am determined that the United States should be part of the solution. 

President Obama issued an Executive order that established an 

interagency task force co-chaired by the Departments of State, Justice and Interior, and charged it with developing a strategy to 

guide U.S. efforts. The resulting National Strategy for Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking fortifies U.S. leadership on countering the globVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:14 May 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\042215\94308 SHIRL
12

al security threat posed by wildlife trafficking. It directs our efforts 

to, one, strengthen domestic and global enforcement; two, reduce 

demand at home and abroad; and, three, build international commitment, cooperation, and public-private partnerships to combat 

wildlife trafficking. 

As you both noted, the task force has also developed an implementation plan for the strategy. Released in February, the plan is 

our road map going forward. It lays out specific next steps, identifies lead agencies for each objective, and defines how we will measure our progress. The plan demonstrates that we are in this for the 

long haul. 

Our work over the past year has been intensive. I will just highlight a few of the key actions the Department of State has taken. 

We are expanding our existing efforts to improve cross-border law 

enforcement cooperation, strengthen wildlife trafficking legislation, 

and enhance wildlife management. We are providing critical training to park rangers, police, custom officials, prosecutors, and 

judges. For example, the Department recently supported 

INTERPOL police investigative training in Vietnam, a key demand 

country. 

The strategy also recognizes that we must address demand that 

is driving poaching to unprecedented levels. We must raise awareness about the devastating impacts of wildlife trafficking. To this 

end, we are working closely with NGOs, many of whom have ongoing public outreach campaigns, as well as the private sector. For 

example, we are providing over $37,000 to support the NGO 

WildAid for its African Wildlife Pride campaign to focus on the urgent need to stop poaching. We are continuing to catalyze political 

will and action by highlighting wildlife trafficking in multilateral 

fora. 

Last year we were able to include language addressing trafficking in two Security Council resolutions sanctioning African 

armed groups. In December, at a conference in Tanzania, Under 

Secretary Novelli jump started regional cooperation in East Africa 

to address the poaching crisis. 

We have made significant progress in interactions with China. 

Last July, during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, 

Secretary Kerry and China’s Vice Premier Liu confirmed their commitment to stamp out illegal trade in wildlife. In November, President Obama and President Xi reaffirmed this commitment and 

agreed to cooperate in the areas of e-commerce, public outreach, 

joint training, and law enforcement. Last month I met with Chinese officials in Beijing to push these issues forward, as well as 

with Chinese wildlife NGOs who expressed appreciation for our attention to these issues. 

Moving forward, we are also leveraging trade agreements to 

press countries and regions which account for a sizeable portion of 

the illegal trade in wildlife to live up to their commitments to combat wildlife trafficking and strengthen wildlife conservation. Indeed, the administration is pursuing such obligations in the TransPacific Partnership Agreement with 11 other countries in the AsiaPacific region, as well as the Transatlantic Partnership Agreement 

negotiations with the European Union. These commitments will be 

fully enforceable, including through recourse to trade sanctions, 

13

which will be a powerful incentive for parties to match words with 

actions. 

In closing, let me just say that we are working across the U.S. 

Government to focus our international investments to combat wildlife trafficking in the most strategic and effective way possible. 

Congress has shown great leadership on this issue, and we truly 

appreciate your support. We look forward to working closely with 

you in our continuing efforts to stop this global scourge. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I 

will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garber follows:]

14


94308a-1.eps
15


94308a-2.eps
16


94308a-3.eps
17


94308a-4.eps
18


94308a-5.eps
19


94308a-6.eps
20


94308a-7.eps
21


94308a-8.eps
22

Mr. POE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. Dreher, we will hear your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT DREHER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. DREHER. All right. So I lost 5 seconds without a microphone. 

I am sorry. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Keating, 

and members of the subcommittee. I am Bob Dreher, Associate Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, on Earth Day fittingly, to discuss the current wildlife trafficking crisis that threatens to wipe out the African elephant, rhinoceros, and a host of 

other species around the globe. As you noted, elephants are being 

slaughtered for ivory today at unprecedented rates, and the poaching of rhinos for their horns has surged upward. 

Wildlife trafficking once was predominantly a crime of opportunity committed by local individuals or small groups. Today it increasingly involves highly organized criminal networks capable of 

moving large commercial volumes of illegal wildlife products. 

Through our law enforcement investigations, we have seen direct 

links between wildlife trafficking and organized crime. My written 

testimony highlights some of our work disrupting large-scale wildlife trafficking networks: Operation Crash, for example, an ongoing 

nationwide criminal investigation led by the service that focuses on 

U.S. involvement in the black market for rhino horn and elephant 

ivory. 

I wanted to give the subcommittee members a more graphic 

sense of what is happening, and I have some slides. The first two 

are photos illustrating the brutal slaughter of elephants and 

rhinos. And we have seen these pictures before. 

What I want to point out is that this sort of wanton killing is 

no longer just the action of local individuals. It is increasingly the 

work of organized criminal networks who send heavily armed 

teams into protected areas with commissions to take elephant ivory 

or rhino horn, who organize the shipping of the still-bloody ivory 

and rhino horns through international channels, and who deliver 

these highly valuable products to buyers in undercover markets 

ranging from East Asia to the United States. 

Photo 3, to give you a sense of the scale of these operations, 

these photos show the evidence seized in 1 day in one of our Operation Crash cases from safety deposit boxes, residences, and businesses in the United States in southern California: Over $1 million 

in cash, $1 million in gold, as well as rhino horns, and other wildlife parts. 

The next three slides just show a number of the individuals and 

businesses convicted here in the United States as part of Operation 

Crash. What I think you can see is that what was once a local or 

regional problem has become a global crisis, as increasingly sophisticated, violent, and ruthless criminal organizations have branched 

into wildlife trafficking. 

To address this escalating wildlife trafficking crisis, the Service 

is building on decades of its work to increase our efforts in our OfVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:14 May 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\042215\94308 SHIRL
23

fice of Law Enforcement and our International Affairs Programs. 

We are working across the U.S. Government to take a coordinated 

approach. In February, the White House released the implementation plan for the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The implementation plan reaffirms our Nation’s commitment to work in partnership with governments, local communities, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, to address 

wildlife trafficking. 

We took an enormous step forward in 2013 when the United 

States destroyed its 6-ton stock of confiscated elephant ivory, sending a clear message we will not tolerate wildlife crime. Several 

other governments have since followed suit, and we now are in a 

much better position to work with the international community to 

crack down on poaching and illegal wildlife trade. 

I would also like to commend Congress for passing legislation 

last year to reauthorize the Save Vanishing Species stamp. Since 

the stamp’s inception in 2011, more than 26 million stamps have 

been purchased by the American public, generating more than $2.6 

million for conservation of elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, and 

marine turtles. 

With assistance from the State Department, we have begun stationing Service law enforcement agents at U.S. Embassies as international attache ́s to coordinate investigations of wildlife trafficking 

and support law enforcement capacity building. The first attache ́

began work in Thailand last year. Others will be located in Tanzania, Peru, Botswana, and China. We are continuing to work on 

administrative actions called for by the National Strategy to eliminate most commercial trade in elephant ivory in the United States 

with certain narrow exceptions, making it harder for criminals to 

sell poached and trafficked ivory. 

We are also providing technical assistance and grants to build incountry capacity. A substantial portion of the funding awarded 

through the multinational species conservation funds is invested in 

projects aimed at combating wildlife crime through improved law 

enforcement, anti-poaching patrols, demand reduction, and economic alternatives. 

While we have made great strides recently to address wildlife 

trafficking, there is still much work to be done. The President requested $75.4 million, an increase of $8 million, for the Service’s 

Office of Law Enforcement in Fiscal Year 2016 to combat expanding wildlife trafficking. 

Wildlife crime still offers low risk and high rewards compared to 

drug and weapons trafficking. We need to change that calculus by 

stiffening penalties for wildlife crime. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I appreciate the subcommittee’s support of our efforts, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:]

24


94308b-1.eps
25


94308b-2.eps
26


94308b-3.eps
27


94308b-4.eps
28


94308b-5.eps
29


94308b-6.eps
30


94308b-7.eps
31

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Dreher. 

Mr. Cruden, your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CRUDEN, ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. CRUDEN. Chairman Poe and Ranking Member Keating, 

thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the work of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 

Justice with respect to combating illegal wildlife trafficking. You 

have my prepared testimony, which I request that you add to the 

record. 

But I want to highlight three things out of that testimony: I 

want to talk to you a little bit about the key role of our environmental prosecutors, our environmental criminal section—we are 

prosecuting wildlife criminals—and then, finally, a little bit following up on one of your questions, and that is our work in training and building capacity abroad. 

The Environment Division through the Environmental Crime 

Section is a recognized leader in the fight against wildlife trafficking. The recent Executive order on combating wildlife trafficking brought increased attention to the severity of really a global 

crisis that we are facing now. Wildlife trafficking, which includes 

poaching protected species and trafficking in their parts, has become a highly profitable crime with profits in the billions of dollars. 

Illegal activity at this scale has devastating impacts. It threatens 

security. It hinders sustainable economic development. It undermines the rule of law. And the illicit trade in wildlife is decimating 

many species worldwide, and some of those species, including such 

majestic animals as rhinoceroses, elephants, great apes, sharks and 

tigers, face extinction in our time or maybe our children’s time. 

The National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking identifies three priorities: Strengthening enforcement, reducing demand, 

and building global cooperation. Just last month I had the honor 

of being, along with Bob Dreher, at the U.S. delegation to the 

Kasane Conference in Botswana on Illegal Wildlife Trade, where 

the ranking leaders from more than 30 nations came together to 

discuss both the problem and the need to work together to address 

the crisis. I spoke on behalf of the United States about our efforts 

to combat wildlife trafficking, but I had the opportunity then to discuss with many African leaders the challenges that they are facing. 

My testimony today is influenced by those comments. 

You know this: At DOJ, we prosecute. The Environment Division 

along with U.S. attorneys across the country in partnership with 

Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for prosecuting wildlife 

trafficking crimes, including related crimes, things like smuggling, 

money laundering, conspiracies. This is serious crime, and we treat 

it seriously. And we seek significant periods of incarceration, fines, 

restitution, community service to help mitigate the harm caused by 

the offense; forfeiture of wildlife and instrumentalities used to commit the offense; and, where possible, disgorgement of the proceeds 

of the illegal conduct. 

You just heard from Bob Dreher about Operation Crash, which 

was a multi-agency effort. It resulted in more than 20 successful 

32

prosecutions, and you saw some of the defendants in the slide that 

was presented. I put in my prepared testimony a whole series of 

descriptions of other wildlife criminal enforcement that we have 

done in the relatively recent past. I just wanted to give you an idea 

of what is happening on the ground right now. I don’t think there 

will be any question of this, that we are recognized throughout the 

world as the leader in wildlife prosecutions. 

In addition to our own direct prosecution, however, we are also 

doing capacity building right now. Through the assistance of the 

State Department, we are developing a new program in Africa that 

will focus on wildlife trafficking. We are planning two regional programs: The first will go in Southeast Africa; the second in central 

West Africa. And we are focusing on prosecutors and judges. 

Just last week I met with some of the leaders of a new task force 

from Togo. We told them about what we were doing. They told us 

that is exactly what they needed. We are also participating extensively in trading in wildlife enforcement networks. These are the 

networks of prosecutors who come together to try to share experience and gain from others. 

We are proud of what we have done, but there is so much more 

to do. We know that we need to be focusing our efforts on bringing 

down high-level traffickers, closing their networks, and disrupting 

the illegal funding flows. We are seeking to take the profit out of 

wildlife trafficking by using all the tools that are available to us. 

We look forward to working with you and Congress to strengthen 

our legal framework, and we would welcome the opportunity to talk 

about such steps as recognizing wildlife trafficking as a predicate 

crime for money laundering and RICO offenses. Another important 

step could be legislation authorizing forfeiture of all proceeds 

gained by illegal wildlife trafficking. 

In closing, the Department, working with other agencies, particularly those two that are sharing right now—Department of State 

and Fish and Wildlife Service—we look forward to vigorously prosecuting those who poach and traffic illegally in wildlife across the 

world. 

Thank you. Happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cruden follows:]

33


94308c-1.eps
34


94308c-2.eps
35


94308c-3.eps
36


94308c-4.eps
37


94308c-5.eps
38


94308c-6.eps
39


94308c-7.eps
40


94308c-8.eps
41


94308c-9.eps
42


94308c-10.eps
43

Mr. POE. I recognize myself for some questions and recognize you 

all for the answers. It is important that we, as you have all said, 

understand as Americans the consequences of doing nothing. The 

disappearance of elephants, it is hard to imagine that that would 

happen in this world, but it could. 

And as Mr. Cruden has said, in our lifetime and in our kids’ lifetime, the only place they are going to see an elephant is in a Disney cartoon maybe because there won’t be any. And rhinos are in 

worse shape and tigers as well. 

I am going to focus my questions on terrorism, terrorist groups, 

poaching, where they sell these items, and the money that is involved. Do we have any idea how many terrorist organizations are 

involved in Africa in the poaching business? 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an illicit 

trade by its very nature. So, of course, it is something that it is difficult for us to have very firm knowledge about. There is no question that the shadowing adaptive financial flows that fund illicit 

crime and illicit activities are at play. We do have evidence that 

militant groups, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and 

Janjaweed, benefit substantially from illegal trade in wildlife. Some 

terrorist entities we believe are benefitting, but the details are very 

sketchy. By how much, it is very hard for us to know. 

Mr. POE. I understand that in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo, 150 park rangers have been killed since 2004, and according to the International Ranger Federation, worldwide, park rangers, two are killed every week that are protecting these parks 

where all these animals are. It seems to me that the Lord’s Resistance Army, which you mentioned, is using Garamba National Park 

in the Democratic Republic of Congo as a base of operations. What 

can you say a little more specifically about the connections between 

the LRA and the ivory trade as a source of its financing? 

Ambassador GARBER. I can say the Lord’s Resistance Army is deriving significant revenue from poaching and illegal trade in elephants, and we have seen these activities intensify over the last 2 

years. 

Mr. POE. Under current law, the U.S. Government can deny a 

foreigner a visa if they are convicted of human trafficking, terrorist 

activity, violations of religious freedom. Do you think we should 

add wildlife trafficking to that list, Ambassador? 

Ambassador GARBER. It is something that we could consider. We 

need—I think part of what we need to be doing is, as you said very 

clearly in your statement, Mr. Chairman, is that we really need to 

understand what is going on better and in more depth. And that 

is something that I think the National Wildlife Strategy and the 

task force has really done. We have seen the strategy and the 

whole-of-government approach truly elevate the attention that the 

intelligence community is giving this problem; we are being able to 

identify the gaps in what our knowledge is and where we need to 

focus that. And I think as that all becomes clear, we will be in a 

better position to really understand if that kind of a step is what 

makes the most sense at this time. 

Mr. POE. If U.S. law enforcement suspects a foreign-owned-andoperated outfitter of violating wildlife laws in a foreign country and 

44

the foreign country refuses to arrest or prosecute the owners and 

operators, does the United States have any enforcement actions, 

such as denying or freezing assets, Mr. Cruden? 

Can we do anything about that? 

Mr. CRUDEN. When we are bringing our prosecutions, we are 

doing it fundamentally under the Lacey Act and the Endangered 

Species Act. Under the Lacey Act, where we actually do look violations of host country laws, but we are looking at that with a nexus 

to us. They are violating the laws, and they are coming to the 

United States. And so that is the connection that we have right 

now. 

By the way, the Lacey Act is, in fact, a model for the rest of the 

world. In country after country that we are talking to, they are 

talking about whether or not they would emulate something like 

the Lacey Act, so I do not want to minimize its importance right 

now. But it does require that nexus to the United States before we 

would have the ability to prosecute. 

Mr. POE. By ‘‘nexus’’ you mean what? 

Mr. CRUDEN. By coming into the United States. You are importing something into or exporting something out of the United States. 

Mr. POE. We deal with international drug cartels, and my understanding is they don’t have to physically be on the United States 

land to go and prosecute them if the money chain comes into the 

U.S. Is that right or not? 

Mr. CRUDEN. I believe that you are correct. Still the same issue, 

that there has to be some connection to the United States. But, by 

the way, under drug trafficking laws, those are a predicate offense 

to money laundering, an ability we really don’t have under wildlife 

trafficking laws. So drug laws are, in fact, more powerful than 

some of our wildlife trafficking offenses, which is why I brought 

that up in my testimony, that that was something else that we 

would be interested in exploring with you. 

Mr. POE. So, if I understand you correctly, if we could balance 

the enforcement with—using, let’s use international drug trafficking. If we could have international wildlife trafficking be treated the same way to some extent as far as jurisdiction and enforcement, do you think that would help? 

Mr. CRUDEN. Similar to what we have for drug trafficking. 

Mr. POE. Similar to what we have for drug trafficking. Not kind 

of merge the laws. Make the laws very similar. 

Mr. CRUDEN. I believe very clearly that wildlife trafficking, as 

you have stated, is a very serious crime similar to drug trafficking. 

And, therefore, we should be able to look at that and gain from 

that experience and benefit, and that might actually help us 

strengthen some of our laws. So I agree with you. 

Mr. POE. And the same would be true of different terrorism laws 

because of the fact that these terrorist groups use the money to 

commit terror, maybe the Congress should explore expanding the 

trafficking issue because, as you have all said, this is a real problem. And it is the disappearance of certain wildlife soon if something is not done very quickly and effectively. Let me ask one more 

question, and I am going to yield to the ranking member for his 

questions. 

45

What countries are the worst offenders as far as cooperating in 

preventing wildlife trafficking in their country? Nobody wants to 

say? I will ask you one specifically. How about Tanzania? Is Tanzania doing a good job of protecting the wildlife in their parks? 

Mr. DREHER. I think the facts, there is an old saying about res 

ipsa loquitur. The issue here is that we know that recent data coming out of Tanzania from the Pan-African elephant survey shows 

that elephants are suffering enormous mortality in Tanzania and 

in their national parks in the areas of Selous and the Ruaha. They 

have a terrible poaching problem. And they are, at least at this 

point, from what we can tell, not able to control it. So they are 

working. We give them credit for engaging in this. 

And we are working with them. I mean, our Ambassador in Tanzania is very much engaged in working with the government officials there, including providing assistance and training from 

AFRICOM. I mean, we are doing as many things as we can to try 

to strengthen their capacity, but they face an enormous challenge. 

Right now, I mean, as you may know, a year ago the Fish and 

Wildlife Service concluded it could not allow the import of sport 

hunting trophies of elephants from Tanzania because we could not 

conclude that their management of the populations in Tanzania 

was stable and sustaining. So all of those, I think, indicate that 

that is a country with serious challenges. 

Mr. POE. And the biggest problem is in Central Africa and South 

Africa—is that a fair statement—of where the poaching is taking 

place? 

Mr. Cruden, you nodded, so I will ask you. 

Mr. CRUDEN. I want to nod, and remember I said in my opening 

statement that some of my comments are affected by what African 

leaders said. African leaders that I talked to talked about in Tanzania as a transshipment place, and your map that you gave us 

shows that. So not only do they have a problem, but it is a place 

where it goes to other places. 

They also told us that they do go not directly to places like China 

or Vietnam because if you put China or Vietnam on your manifest, 

you are more likely to get checked at the customs office. So they 

put intermediary places like Malaysia or Philippines as a place 

that makes it less likely then that their illegal exportation of 

things like ivory will get looked at. 

So I agree with everything that Mr. Dreher said, but I also think 

it is relevant as a transshipment place as well in this whole concept of organized crime. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you. Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking specifically refers to the need for new technologies to identify poaching 

hot spots and trafficking patterns. It also calls on agencies to work 

with local communities to strengthen reporting of these activities. 

I am aware of some existing high-tech international partnerships 

between conservation organizations. For example, the International 

Fund for Animal Welfare and the Kenya Wildlife Service recently 

launched a project, tenBoma, to use geospatial monitoring and pattern analysis to predict and prevent poaching incidents before they 

46

happen. How does the State Department plan to integrate projects 

like these into its work? 

Ambassador GARBER. Well, we certainly think that everybody 

has to be part of the solution, and new technologies and innovation 

is a key part of moving forward. And this is not the State Department per se, but this really is a whole-of-government approach; but 

my understanding, and I hope I am not going to do anything to 

steal someone’s thunder, but it is my understanding that USAID 

today is going to be officially launching the Tech Challenge to be 

addressing this problem. So I hopefully won’t have the Acting Administrator ready to take my head off by having announced that 

and maybe having stolen someone’s thunder. I didn’t see that it already happened today. 

But we are working very closely with the NGO community trying 

to bring strong ways forward. We are doing this not just on wildlife 

trafficking, but you also talked about in your comments about illegal IUU fishing and ways to be approaching that. And we are going 

to be hosting a meeting in May with several of the NGOs to look 

at ways we can use some of these same new technologies to be addressing that question as well. 

Mr. KEATING. Do other witnesses want to comment on some of 

the high-tech assistance we can get? 

Mr. DREHER. There are varieties of tech, from high to low, that 

the folks in Africa that are fighting this problem really need. I 

mean, the high-tech things can include things as simple at nightvision scopes. A lot of the poachers are well-equipped, wellequipped with military surplus hardware. It can include relatively 

high-cost things like helicopters for aerial surveillance, but it can 

also include training and just making sure that the rangers are 

being paid decent living wages. So there is a whole range of things 

they need, but they clearly are outgunned and I think out-tech’d 

right now. 

Mr. KEATING. Drone technology helpful at all? 

Mr. CRUDEN. I mean, technology is—the GPS capability now, 

which is sweeping over Africa, will be enormously beneficial. They 

are working on fences. They are working on radar. They are using 

night-vision goggles, and all of those things are beneficial. But I 

will only, again, two things out of my Africa trip. One was a national park official telling me that their biggest challenge was they 

were outgunned. I thought maybe he was speaking metaphorically. 

I said, ‘‘What do you mean?’’ He said: ‘‘I mean, they have rocketpropelled grenade launchers and automatic weapons, and we have 

World War II weapons.’’ And so that was a challenge. 

But also on not so high tech but just telling you what better coordination, we met with the local pilots association, you know, all 

over Africa. And we were in Botswana. There are hundreds of these 

small planes that are just couriering people back and forth. And 

the pilot I met with said:

‘‘We are banding together. This is important to us. This is 15 

percent of the gross national product of Botswana, and it pays 

for our salary. We are reporting to the government. We are 

getting together, and we will tell them when we see suspicious 

activity in the area because we know what strange vehicles 

look like, and we know what strange people look like.’’

47

So I think the high tech really helps, but I also think that lowlevel activity can be enormously beneficial. And they are just getting there now. 

Mr. KEATING. I know that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, they have 

listed several potential changes in regulations related to ivory 

trade within the U.S., and many museums and antique dealers and 

scrimshanders are concerned that the rules could inadvertently but 

not drastically impact their trade while economically affecting U.S. 

consumers. When you are dealing with these regulations, will you 

be able to draw the lines clearly enough so there won’t be any inadvertent effect? 

Mr. DREHER. We are looking very closely at that. As you know, 

we are hoping to be able to get a draft rule out on the street very 

soon that would reflect the input we received from the interest 

groups that you have discussed and other folks that have, you 

know, well-intentioned interests that they are trying to maintain. 

Our sole goal in trying to regulate the ivory trade in the United 

States is to eliminate the potential for it to serve as cover for illegal ivory. And there are di minimis amounts of ivory that are included, for example, in old musical instruments. And our goal is 

not to impede the movement of orchestras in and out of the United 

States. They are subject to CITES regulations, but we do everything we can to facilitate that. Similarly, we are going to do everything we can to accommodate truly di minimis uses of ivory. But 

the heart of the issue is, things that are multi-million-dollar antique ivory carvings are going to have to be able to demonstrate 

provenance. They are going to have to be able to demonstrate that 

they were not created, brought into the country, and then passed 

off as antique ivory. We had a major case just a year ago, where 

we—and John’s folks successfully prosecuted an antiques dealer in 

Philadelphia who had a ton of ivory. And he was having it antiqued 

in Africa and shipped here to be passed off. That is what our concern is, is that our market here will end up being a front for illegal 

ivory. And we are going to do our best to cut down that kind of bigscale use. 

Mr. KEATING. Lastly, in enforcement, it is so difficult because you 

are dealing with so many different nations. Some of them have 

varying degrees of rule of law. But one of the areas that you mentioned, Mr. Cruden, in terms of forfeiture, it is more administrative 

in nature. It is something that I think could be enforced a little 

better than a rule of law and actually going through judicial proceedings. Is there hope for that and getting into bank accounts and 

providing from enforcement people an incentive to go after these 

people in different countries? 

Mr. CRUDEN. I want to answer in two ways: One of them is what 

we are doing; and, second, what we are promoting because, I told 

you, we are trying to do capacity building, and we are right now 

trying, working to set up programs in Africa. For us to be effective, 

for us to really deter illegal conduct, we have to make it not profitable. Even though we are seeking sentences, and we are putting 

people to jail. There is no question people are going to jail. That 

is not a bad deterrent effort, by the way, is putting you in jail. But 

that does not mean we are getting the higher network. That is 

what you do with RICO-like capability. 

48

But when we are seeking restitution, when we are seeking to 

take the profit out of crime, right now what our statute does is we 

can actually do anything you do illegally. But some of these people 

are involved in a whole host of trafficking, some illegal, some not. 

And that would be one advantage is if we had a broader authority 

that we could take all of the profit out of it. But when we are going 

overseas—because sometimes it is very hard for them to come up 

with a penalty analysis, but it is not as hard for them to talk about 

restitution. It is not as hard to talk about seizing the assets of the 

illegal act. That is easier conceptually and easier for their courts 

to get their hands around. So not only is it valuable for us, but I 

think it is also valuable for us to explain and help and build capacity in some of these prosecutors that we are dealing with. 

Mr. KEATING. And the timeframe can be drastically reduced, too. 

Mr. CRUDEN. Yes, and the time frame is quickly reduced. 

Mr. KEATING. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I have a couple of questions, and I am going to yield 

to a member that has joined us on the panel. I understand that, 

on Saturday, Thailand seized 4 metric tons of ivory. We have a 

Fish and Wildlife enforcement agent there in Bangkok. First of all, 

how many elephants would you have to kill to get 4 metric tons of 

ivory? All right. Somebody majored in math. Seriously, how many 

elephants are we talking about for 4 metric tons of ivory? Anybody 

have an idea, Mr. Dreher? 

Mr. DREHER. My rule of thumb on this I think is that a tusk is 

about 20 pounds. So if you are talking about an adult elephant, 2 

tusks, 40 pounds, to get to 4 metric tons, you are talking thousands 

of elephants that had to go into that shipment. 

Mr. POE. So since we have an enforcement agent there in Bangkok from Fish and Wildlife, is there anything we can do to help 

Thailand track the criminal networks responsible for this slaughter 

of elephants? 

Mr. DREHER. That is exactly why he is there. I wish I could take 

credit for the fact that it was our enforcement agent that helped 

bring this seizure to fruition, but I don’t have that information. But 

what I can tell you is the reason we are placing attache ́s there and 

in the other locations we are proposing, all of which are hot spots 

for wildlife trafficking, is precisely to be able to coordinate with the 

law enforcement authorities of the country, with the other Federal 

agencies that are part of the Embassy and part of the mission 

there, and to try to coordinate this information. 

Mr. POE. If I did my math right, there were 740 tusks at 20 

bucks a piece. That is $14,800. 

Ambassador GARBER. Our colleagues in the back who can actually do math better than me sitting here can actually do, are saying it is approximately 500 elephants. 

Mr. POE. 500 elephants. Okay. I am going to ask unanimous consent that we have a Member that is not on the Foreign Affairs 

Committee ask questions, unless there is some objection, for Mr. 

DeFazio to be recognized for his question. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for not objecting, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

First, I would observe, Mr. Chairman, that I did introduce a bill 

today we called—cleverly—called the TUSKER Act, H.R. 1945, that 

49

would require that countries that are identified under CITES as 

significant source, transit, or destination points for illegal ivory or 

rhino horn, immediately enter into consultations with the U.S. to 

discuss measures to end their importation and facilitation. Absent 

that, then the U.S. has the option of imposing sanctions. I think 

the Chinese with their, whatever their current trade deficit is with 

the U.S. at risk, would take some measures. 

And I actually got some of the ideas from Jack Fields, former Republican Representative from Texas. You might know Jack. Jack 

worked on this on a bipartisan basis the last time we had a huge 

crisis. And we did pass a bill. It was particularly targeted at Hong 

Kong and some other areas at that point. They got the message 

pretty quickly, and it stopped. But, of course, now ivory is infinitely 

more valuable than it was then, and now you are talking about 

dealing with Lord’s Resistance Army or ISIS or who knows who are 

financing their nefarious activities with this. 

I would just put to the panel, I mean, first, I am not aware that, 

even though the President has CITES—has authority under Pelly, 

that he has thought about or has initiated any use of it against 

these target countries, even though we are initiating rules here. 

Secondly, if you are not aware of that, don’t you believe that, given 

the fact that absent us sending in the SEALS and the Special 

Forces to level the playing field in terms of weaponry, that this is 

one of the best things the U.S. could do, which is to threaten meaningful sanctions against Vietnam, China, and the other major importers who are facilitating this trade. 

So two questions, one, has there been any consideration or discussion of invoking Pelly, yes or no? And if not, would this not be 

potentially an effective tool? 

Mr. DREHER. I am not aware of discussions within the administration of invoking Pelly. I know that it is an issue that from time 

to time is raised with us and that we do consider. 

As to the issue of trade sanctions, I mean, a part of me wants 

to say that one of the great facts of coming to this hearing is that 

we are seeing people, including this committee—and we are very 

grateful for it—taking the wildlife trafficking crisis very seriously. 

And one of our messages has been throughout the National Strategy and our testimony here today that it should be considered to 

be on a par with other forms of extremely dangerous and lucrative 

international organized crime. And so we ask for the full strength 

of the government to be brought against it. I can’t, however, give 

you any answer on the specific issue that you have raised for your 

bill about applying trade sanctions. There is a host of issues that 

would go into that, and I know that——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. We always give into the Chinese, let them 

run a huge trade deficit, and steal our jobs. But maybe this is a 

time when we stand up for the last remaining elephants on Earth; 

send them a strong message; and say, ‘‘Hey, you want us to pay 

you $200 billion more in deficit next year, well, guess what, not 

going to happen unless you’’—and I know you can’t go there with 

this administration, but since the administration has not shown 

any inclination to act meaningfully. It is one thing to go after some 

guy who was trying to bring a piano back into the U.S., and I did 

see that load of stuff, which was antiqued, and that was massive 

50

and huge, and I am glad you got him. But you need to be careful 

in writing this rule in terms of, you know, going so far that we end 

up—there is a provision Congress passed in the Gingrich era—

rarely used—the Congressional Review Act, where every rule of 

major importance has to come to Congress for 60 days, and it can 

be essentially vetoed by Congress. 

So the rule needs to be very thoughtfully done. I mean, when you 

get people excited about little, tiny embellishments in a gunstock 

and stuff like that, that is something we don’t need. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DREHER. If I could just supplement my answer because I am 

informed that in fact we are looking at the issue of Pelly sanctions 

with regard to Vietnam and its role in the rhino horn trade, and 

we are also looking at Mozambique. So those things are being considered for those two countries. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks. Let’s look at China on ivory. I know it is 

tough to ever stand up to China, but we should do that. 

Ambassador GARBER. If I could add and supplement what Mr. 

Dreher said, in our negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as 

well our negotiations with the European Union on possibly a transatlantic trade agreement, we are including environmental aspects, 

including wildlife trafficking, that would be subject and bound to 

dispute resolution and binding enforcement. So that is one tactic 

we are taking to look at the trade side. 

And, specifically with regard to China, we have certainly been 

elevating the issue of wildlife trafficking in our engagement with 

the highest levels of Chinese Government. President Obama has 

raised it to President XI. I know that Secretary Kerry has raised 

it and will be using it again during a strategic and economic dialogue. I know that the Treasury Secretary raised it when he was 

just out in China last month. And I believe we have agreement to 

be raising it at the highest levels. 

What we have found with China is that really significant change 

is going to have to come from the top down. We saw that with the 

success of shark fin. So we believe that we are really making some 

progress, and we are going to continue on a sustained basis raising 

this at the highest diplomatic levels. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate hearing that. 

Thank you for your generous grant of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. Thank you for being here. 

One last comment following up on Ambassador Garber. China is 

by far the number one offending nation as far as where this ivory 

ends up. Is that a fair statement? 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador GARBER. Yes, that is our understanding. 

Mr. POE. And then Vietnam would be the number one nation 

where rhino tusks end up. Is that correct? 

Ambassador GARBER. Yes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you all for being here. Members have 5 days to 

submit other questions and statements for the record. 

And this subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 4 o’clock p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

52

f


94308n.eps
53

Æ


94308m.eps