Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 6197

RAWR Act: Should the State Department Offer Rewards to Combat Global Wildlife Trafficking?

Argument in favor

Cash rewards for whistleblowers are an effective tool for fighting wildlife trafficking. Explicitly allowing the State Department to give rewards in exchange for information that helps fight these crimes will help improve detection and deterrence of these crimes.

Mark 's Opinion
···
09/11/2018
Yup ! Start with Donald Trump Jr....moron!!!
Like (38)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
09/10/2018
If we are thwarting the illegal wildlife trade, I’m in. We need to preserve wildlife diversity around the world.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
Patricia's Opinion
···
09/12/2018
Rich Americans are probably part of the problem, buying wildlife that must be kept where the traffickers found it--- in the wild. We are so responsible for so many insults to the environment we can at least spend some money trying to preserve some of it. We can take back the heinous tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations and then we'd have plenty of money for doing the right thing. Wouldn't that be something, doing the right thing?
Like (15)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The State Department already has the authority to offer rewards in exchange for tips that deter international crime, which covers wildlife trafficking. Additionally, it’s not clear that State is the best federal agency to combat wildlife trafficking.

Gregory's Opinion
···
09/12/2018
This duplicates and overlaps existing laws blurring jurisdiction increasing need for coordination and creating more complexity. Part of making government efficient is avoiding poor execution even for the best causes.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
Tim's Opinion
···
09/12/2018
No. While the cause is worthy, don’t spend taxpayer money on this. Have payments come out of some interested philanthropic or NGO’s funds. Match your ideals with your wallet.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Jerrey's Opinion
···
09/12/2018
While the motivation for this bill is laudable, it appears to be a needless duplication of existing laws and regulations. Advertising what is already on the books would seem to be equally effective.
Like (5)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Foreign Relations
  • The house Passed September 12th, 2018
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedJune 22nd, 2018

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H.R. 6197?

This bill — the Rescuing Animals with Rewards (RAWR) Act of 2018 — would authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to transnational organized crime. The State Department — which already offers rewards in exchange for information that helps deter transnational organized crime — would now be able to offer cash rewards in exchange for information about wildlife trafficking, such as poaching and illegal trade in wildlife.


Impact

Wildlife traffickers; whistleblowers; and the State Department.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 6197

The CBO has no basis for estimating the cost of this legislation, as it can't project the additional amounts of rewards that the State Dept. might award under this authority.

More Information

In-Depth: Rep. Daniel Donovan (R-NY) introduced this bill to expand the State Department’s ability to offer cash rewards for information that helps combat international wildlife trafficking. Scott Hajost, Managing Director of the Global Wildlife Whistleblower Program at the national Whistleblower Center in Washington, D.C., calls cash rewards for whistleblowers a critical part of the enforcement regime against wildlife trafficking:

“At its core, wildlife trafficking is a business. Whistleblowers have been incredibly effective in cracking down on financial and corporate crimes. It is time we apply this methodology to the wildlife sphere... [Rewards for whistleblowers] provide a monetary incentive to report illicit activity. By empowering whistleblowers, we can change the calculus of participating in wildlife crime. If we make reporting crime more lucrative than participating in it, there will be a sea change in how the wildlife crime industry operates… Leveraging whistleblower reward laws is about dismantling the wildlife crime system by holding the most powerful players accountable.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), while in agreement that offering financial rewards to combat illegal wildlife trafficking is effective and merits expansion, disagrees with the position that the State Department should pay and administer such rewards. Instead, the GAO suggested in an April 2018 report that the Departments of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking. The GAO points out that from FY 2007-2017, the agencies collectively reported paying only 27 rewards at a collective total of $205,500 — which could be significantly improved through better administration, better information communication to the public on financial rewards, and stronger internal review of each agency’s use of financial rewards.

The GAO’s WatchBlog also notes that rewards also have some disadvantages as a law enforcement tactic, as they may elicit false or unproductive leads; affect witness credibility, which may become a challenge at trial because sources were compensated for their information; and consume resources, as a flood of tips motivated by a reward requires effort for follow-up or corroboration.

This legislation passed the House Committee on Foreign Relations on a unanimous vote with the support of five cosponsors, including one Republican and four Democrats.


Of Note: The State Department currently has a rewards program that uses appropriated funds to offer cash awards to deter transnational organized crime. This rewards program is currently offering a reward of up to $1 million for information that could lead to the dismantling of the Xaysavang Network, a Laos-based international wildlife trafficking syndicate that’s been linked to the slaughter of rhinos and elephants in South Africa and Mozambique to trade their horns and tusks in China, Thailand, and Vietnam.

It should be noted that the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program, which was signed into law on January 2013, enables the Secretary of State to offer rewards for information leading to the arrest, conviction, or identification of significant members of transnational criminal organizations who operate primarily outside the U.S. The law also allows for rewards for information that dismantles such organizations or leads to the disruption of their financial mechanisms. Additionally, multiple laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act, authorize the FWS and NOAA to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking.

There are already two U.S. whistleblower reward laws with international jurisdiction that can be used to combat wildlife crime: the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

The FCA is the federal government’s primary litigation tool against those who defraud the government. It penalizes customs fraud, and has been successful in cracking down on crime in the non-wildlife context. Illicit wildlife products are frequently smuggled through ports – by air, land, and sea – and are able to pass through customs based on falsified documents. Evidence of these falsified documents would provide a strong basis for an FCA case, and would allow the whistleblower reward provision to apply. The FCA is a powerful tool for halting wildlife crime because there’s a clearly delineated evidentiary threshold for litigation, and non-U.S. citizens and NGOs are eligible for whistleblower rewards under the FCA.

The FCPA, which prohibits publicly-traded corporations, both U.S. and international, from paying bribes to foreign officials and mandates financial record-keeping, can also be used to litigate wildlife crime cases that occur outside the U.S. In the wildlife crime context, if an individual has evidence of inaccurate financial record keeping that covers up wildlife trafficking, or papers that show the wiring of funds to pay for illegal wildlife products, there may be grounds for an FCPA case so long as the company involved is under its jurisdiction.


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / Robert_Ford)

AKA

RAWR Act

Official Title

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to transnational organized crime, and for other purposes.

    Yup ! Start with Donald Trump Jr....moron!!!
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    This duplicates and overlaps existing laws blurring jurisdiction increasing need for coordination and creating more complexity. Part of making government efficient is avoiding poor execution even for the best causes.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    If we are thwarting the illegal wildlife trade, I’m in. We need to preserve wildlife diversity around the world.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Rich Americans are probably part of the problem, buying wildlife that must be kept where the traffickers found it--- in the wild. We are so responsible for so many insults to the environment we can at least spend some money trying to preserve some of it. We can take back the heinous tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations and then we'd have plenty of money for doing the right thing. Wouldn't that be something, doing the right thing?
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect threatened species.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    No. While the cause is worthy, don’t spend taxpayer money on this. Have payments come out of some interested philanthropic or NGO’s funds. Match your ideals with your wallet.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    While the motivation for this bill is laudable, it appears to be a needless duplication of existing laws and regulations. Advertising what is already on the books would seem to be equally effective.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It needs to be stopped!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The Federal government is there to provide for defense and regulate the states.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This does not fit into duties proscribed in the Constitution.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Yet snother duplicate law.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    NO !
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    As others have pointed out, this bill duplicates an existing law. In addition, offering monetary rewards to prevent global wildlife trafficking and poaching is wrong. A worldwide law should state endangering wildlife, wildlife trafficking is a crime, punishable by prison. Anytime money is used as in incentive, the door for the misuse of monies, fraudulent claims and embezzlement is left wide open.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    H.R. 6197 AKA Rescuing Animals with Rewards (RAWR) ACT I’d be STRONGLY in support of the passage of House Bill H.R. 6197 AKA This bill — the Rescuing Animals with Rewards (RAWR) Act of 2018 — would authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to transnational organized crime. The State Department — which already offers rewards in exchange for information that helps deter transnational organized crime — would now be able to offer cash rewards in exchange for information about wildlife trafficking, such as poaching and illegal trade in wildlife. Cash rewards for whistleblowers are an effective tool for fighting wildlife trafficking. Explicitly allowing the State Department to give rewards in exchange for information that helps fight these crimes will help improve detection and deterrence of these crimes. 9*11*18...... SneakyPete.....
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely not. US should work with other countries to educate and eradicate the problem. This is not a one country solution, we need to get together with other countries or UN to solve the problems. Bribing a few not to do it is not a good policy and not a good solution.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Duh? Why is this a question?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Offering "rewards" is an easy cop out avoid the real leg work that must be done to stop the purchase & influx of wild life that is not natural to our continental environment.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    There are already rewards available. Cut the deficit or cut taxes!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The cobra effect occurs when an attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse, as a type of unintended consequence. The term is used to illustrate the causes of incorrect stimulation in economy and politics. Look it up and be careful what you ask government to do.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE