[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SNIFFING OUT TERRORISM:
THE USE OF DOGS IN HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREVENTION OF
MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-902 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�0900012007
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Don Young, Alaska Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Norman D. Dicks, Washington
John Linder, Georgia Jane Harman, California
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Tom Davis, Virginia Nita M. Lowey, New York
Daniel E. Lungren, California Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Columbia
Rob Simmons, Connecticut Zoe Lofgren, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Katherine Harris, Florida Donna M. Christensen , U.S. Virgin
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Islands
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Michael McCaul, Texas James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
______
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight
Mike Rogers, Alabama, Chairman
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
John Linder, Georgia Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Tom Davis, Virginia Zoe Lofgren, California
Katherine Harris, Florida Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Dave G. Reichert, Washington Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Michael McCaul, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Islands
Peter T. King, New York Ex Officio Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Ex
Officio
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management,
Integration and Oversight:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Kendrick B. Meek, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Integration and Oversight.......................... 3
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
The Honorable Michael McCaul, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas............................................. 25
The Honorable Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 22
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York..................................... 27
Witnesses
Panel I
Special Agent Terry Bohan, Chief, National Canine Training and
Operations Support Branch, Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, Department of Justice:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. David Kontny, Director, National Explosives Detection Canine,
Team Program, Transportation Security Administration,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Mr. Lee Titus, Director of Canine Programs, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Panel II
Dr. C. Michael Moriarty, Associate Provost and Vice President for
Research, Auburn University:
Oral Statement................................................. 36
Prepared Statement............................................. 38
Ms. Terri Recknor, President, Garrison and Sloan Canine
Detection:
Oral Statement................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 46
Chief Ralph Eugene Wilson, Jr., Chief of Police, Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit, Authority (MARTA):
Oral Statement................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 35
SNIFFING OUT TERRORISM:
THE USE OF DOGS IN HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:14 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, McCaul, Dent, Meek,
Thompson, Jackson-Lee, and Pascrell.
Mr. Rogers. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland
Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
Oversight, will come to order.
I would first like to welcome our witnesses and thank them
for taking time out of their schedules to be here today.
We are holding this hearing today to examine how dogs are
being used to assist Federal law enforcement officers in
homeland security missions.
The hearing follows a live demonstration and a closed
briefing earlier this morning, during which Members had an
opportunity to raise issues with our Federal witnesses that
were law-enforcement sensitive.
I wish to first welcome our distinguished witnesses and
thank them for taking the time out of their busy schedules to
be with us today.
Dogs may be considered not only man's best friend but also
one of our best defenses against terrorism. They have a keen
sense of smell and a strong ability to process smell. Research
shows that while humans have 5 million olfactory cells in their
noses, dogs have over 300 million.
Research also shows that the part of the brain responsible
for processing smell is up to 40 times larger in dogs than in
humans. As we will hear from our witnesses today, dogs are used
to detect explosives, narcotics, bulk cash and concealed
humans.
Dogs are also being used in search and rescue operations
such as those taking place in areas ravaged by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
After the London bombings in July, dogs were deployed
throughout London's subway system, as well as in mass transit
systems here at home. In a mass transit setting, dogs are one
of the best tools available to screen passengers and their bags
for explosives, primarily because dogs can move easily through
crowds and can be moved quickly from one location to another.
Dogs are also an important complement to the explosive
detection technologies that may be too cumbersome, less mobile
and more costly to use.
Dogs, however, have inherent limitations, most of which
were explored during our closed hearing. While it is important
to expand the use of dogs where appropriate, it is not the
panacea that some have suggested for protecting our subway
systems or detecting concealed weapons.
Today's public session will explore a range of other issues
related to the use of dogs in homeland security. Our specific
questions include: how are dogs trained? Are the multiple
Federal training programs coordinated effectively?
What are the costs associated with training and can they be
reduced? And should better guidelines be developed to ensure
the effectiveness of dogs that state and local agencies buy
from private dog trainers?
On our first panel today we are pleased to welcome experts
in the training and deployment of dogs from two agencies in the
Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and the Transportation Security Administration.
And I would also like to mention that today the
Transportation Security Administration is announcing an
expansion of its national explosive detection canine team
program to 10 mass transit and commuter rail systems across the
country.
One of those systems is right here in the nation's capital,
which will see three bomb dogs. We look forward to hearing more
about this initiative from TSA witnesses.
We also have a representative from the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice.
On our second panel, I am especially pleased to welcome a
representative from Auburn University, which operates the
Canine Detection Training Center located near my hometown in
Anniston, Alabama. Auburn University's canine training program
has been chosen by a number of Federal, state and local
agencies to train their dogs because of the range of training
services it offers.
We also will hear from the chief of police for the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which has two
dogs trained by Auburn University.
And finally, we will hear from a representative from a
private canine training company in Florida which works
extensively with the cruise line industry.
Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining
us today. I look forward to their testimony on this important
topic.
Prepared Opening Statement of the Honorable Mike Rogers
We are holding this hearing today to examine how dogs are being
used to assist Federal law enforcement officers in homeland security
missions.
The hearing follows a live demonstration, and a closed briefing
earlier this morning, during which Members had an opportunity to raise
issues with our Federal witnesses that were law-enforcement sensitive.
I would first like to welcome our distinguished witnesses, and
thank them for taking time out of their busy schedules to be with us
today.
Dogs may be considered not only man's best friend, but also one of
our best defenses against terrorism.
They have a keen sense of smell, and a strong ability to process
smell.
Research shows that while humans have five million olfactory cells
in their noses, dogs have over 300 million.
Research also shows that the part of the brain responsible for
processing smell is up to 40 times larger in dogs, than in humans.
As we will hear from our witnesses today, dogs are used to detect
explosives, narcotics, bulk cash, and concealed humans.
Dogs also are being used in search and rescue operations, such as
those taking place in areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
Rita.
After the London bombings in July, dogs were deployed throughout
London's subway system, as well as in mass transit systems here at
home.
In the mass transit setting, dogs are one of the best tools
available to screen passengers and their bags for explosives, primarily
because dogs can move easily through crowds and can be moved quickly
from one location to another.
Dogs are also an important complement to explosives detection
technologies that may be too cumbersome, less mobile, and more costly
to use.
Dogs, however, have inherent and significant limitations, most of
which were explored during our closed session.
While it is important to expand the use of dogs where appropriate,
it is not the panacea that some have suggested for protecting our
subway systems, or detecting concealed explosives.
Today's public session will explore a range of other issues related
to the use of dogs in homeland security.
Our specific questions include: How are dogs trained? Are the
multiple Federal training programs coordinated effectively? What are
the costs associated with this training, and can they be reduced?
And, should better guidelines be developed to ensure the
effectiveness of dogs that state and local agencies buy from private
dog trainers?
On our first panel today, we are pleased to welcome experts in the
training and deployment of dogs from two agencies in the Department of
Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the
Transportation Security Administration.
We also have a representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice.
On our second panel, I am especially pleased to welcome a
representative from Auburn University, which operates the Canine
Detection Training Center located in my hometown of Anniston, Alabama.
Auburn University's canine training program has been chosen by a
number of Federal, state, and local agencies to train their dogs
because of the range of training services it offers.
We also will hear from the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which has two dogs trained by Auburn
University.
And finally, we will hear from a representative from a private
canine training company in Florida, which works extensively with the
cruise line industry.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and look
forward to their testimony on this important topic.
I now yield. . .
Mr. Roers. I now would like to yield to the Ranking Member,
my friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Meek.
Mr. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I pretty much made my opening statement during the
demonstration end, but I just want to say again that any
testimony that will be helpful for us to be able to explain to
not only colleagues here in the Congress but on the local and
state level the reason why handler and canine officer has to
have the kind of training, the kind of down time, so that they
can be effective while they are in service.
I think it is important. I think Americans also have to go
through, and we in the Congress have to go through, quite a bit
of education, of understanding why we have to have so many
canines and officers and handlers in a particular area to cover
a train station or to cover an airport gate.
And that understanding, because I believe that the key to
defending the homeland--and I hope that you can talk about this
a little bit more--is to make sure that the American public is
comfortable with securing themselves, that we have--we get a
lot of complaints about the TSA and TSA officers because they
are doing their jobs.
I believe that our canine officers can help us not only at
airport gates but also in train stations and cruise ship areas
of doing a thorough search, doing a search that, one, does not
feel that it is intrusive, and so I feel the expansion of this
program is going to be paramount to protecting America.
I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I definitely
have some questions afterwards.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we struggle to make our transportation systems and
critical infrastructure more secure, canine detection systems
are an invaluable tool in that effort.
As we saw in the canine demonstration, dogs are indeed
versatile, mobile explosive detection systems. I firmly believe
that greater utilization of these four-legged inspectors make a
lot of sense.
In dense, dynamic environments such as airports and train
platforms, trained explosive detection dogs are able to not
only screen passenger and bags but serve as a deterrent to
would-be terrorists.
I am particularly interested in hearing how they would
enhance security in the rail and transit environment and can
help screen air cargo. With respect to air cargo, the 9/11
Commission put securing planes from explosive cargo on its
unfinished agenda.
How do we close the air cargo gap, given the vastness and
variation of air cargo? Every day the U.S. air cargo supply
chain handles more than 50,000 tons of cargo. There are few
technological solutions for screening cargo, which is often
palletized and shrink-wrapped.
I understand that TSA's pilot with explosive detection dogs
indicated that canines show great promise as a screening tool
in the air cargo environment. I look forward to hearing from
our witness from TSA about how TSA is doing to ensure that dogs
are integrated into our layer approach to cargo security.
I am also interested in seeing greater utilization of dogs
in the rail and transit environment. We know from both the 9/11
attackers and now the London bombers that terrorists generally
do a run-through before committing their attack.
Increased visibility of explosive detection dogs together
with surveillance cameras and a perceptible law enforcement
presence may well make a terrorist think twice.
With all that dogs can do, the impulse may be there to use
them to the exclusion of other technology and approaches. That
would be a mistake. When it comes to securing our power plants,
rail systems and other vital infrastructures, we need layered
approaches that integrates different technologies, surveillance
and detection dogs.
Like with any explosive detection system, dogs need
maintenance. The key distinction is that dogs rely on their
handlers for care, not engineers. Also, like explosive
detection systems, dogs perform differently depending on heat,
cold and other environmental factors.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what dogs
can and cannot do. I know that all around this nation, in
communities large and small, there is a great deal of interest
in getting more dogs to do explosive detection.
Given that federal resources are far too limited to meet
the need, they are forced to look to private vendors. However,
finding a reputable canine detection company is not as easy as
you would think. There are no federal standards and a whole lot
of associations out there that are happy to certify a dog, for
a fee, I might add.
State and local governments and private firms that oversee
critical infrastructures, like oil refineries and water
treatment plants, need to trust that if they acquire a dog team
it can do the job.
With the growth in interest in explosive detection dogs, we
must start looking at national standards and certification.
Again, thank you to the witness who joined us, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Rogers. Thank the gentleman.
I would remind other members of the committee that their
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
Prepared Opening Statement of the Honorable Peter T. King
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today.
As we saw after the July terrorist bombings in London, and more
recently in the recovery efforts for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, dogs
are a versatile resource not only for the Department of Homeland
Security, but also for law enforcement officials at all levels of
government.
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection was among other Federal agencies that deployed urban
search and rescue dogs to the area, as well as cadaver detection dogs.
CBP sent three of its specially trained dogs to assist in locating the
deceased.
In my home State of New York, dogs are an integral part of the
daily activities of the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. The NYPD has three units that use
canine teams--the Narcotics Unit, the Bomb Squad, and the Patrol Unit.
The Narcotics Unit has eight drug detection dogs; the Bomb Squad has 19
explosives detection dogs; and the Patrol Unit has 38 dogs, several of
which are search and rescue and cadaver dogs that are certified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This morning's hearing will offer an opportunity to learn more
about these dogs' capabilities and how they contribute to the Federal
government's layered defense against terrorism. While dogs are not a
perfect solution, they can be easily and quickly deployed to a variety
of venues, and they support homeland security as well as non-homeland
security missions.
This hearing will also offer an opportunity to examine the status
of the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to consolidate some of
its overlapping programs. CBP announced last month that, effective
October 1, 2005, it will be consolidating its two canine training
programs under one office. I look forward to hearing more about how
this effort will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of CBP's
canine training programs.
I am pleased to see that the panelists today represent a range of
perspectives regarding the use of detection canines. We have several
agencies that train dogs for use at the Federal, state, and local
level; we have researchers who are working to improve dogs' detection
capabilities; and we have a local law enforcement agency that uses the
dogs trained by two agencies here today.
I look forward to hearing more about how dogs are helping protect
the homeland every day, and how we can further improve the training and
coordination of Federal canine programs to make the most of these dogs'
special talents.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. We are pleased to have two panels of
distinguished witnesses before us today on this important
topic.
I would like to remind the witnesses that their entire
statements may be submitted, but we would ask that you try to
limit your opening statements to 5 minutes so that we can move
on to questions.
The Chair now calls the first panel and recognizes Mr. Lee
Titus, Director of Canine Programs at the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Titus?
STATEMENT OF LEE TITUS
Mr. Titus. Good morning, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member
Meek, members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege to appear
before you today to discuss the training of canine teams within
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the committee
for holding this hearing on canine teams, helping us to bring
attention to the accomplishments to the forefront of this
important program and the issues facing the program.
CBP's canine law enforcement program, one of several
Department of Homeland Security canine programs that protects
life and property, contributes to the department's law
enforcement and antiterrorism missions and is the largest
federal canine law enforcement program in the United States.
CBP has trained and deployed thousands of canine teams in
support of our antiterrorism and traditional missions over the
years. Working together at and between our nation's official
ports of entry, our canine teams are a critical component in
CBP's layered approach to border protection and our ability to
secure our border, protect our homeland and defend against the
threats posted by potential terrorists, explosives, chemical
weapons, illegal aliens, narcotics and harmful agricultural
pests and products.
The canine enforcement program is responsible for a
significant portion of narcotics seizures made by Customs and
Border Protection at ports of entry, checkpoints and between
official ports of entry, accounting for more than 11,600
narcotics seizures, totaling over 1,804,000 pounds of narcotics
for fiscal year 2004.
The canine enforcement program was responsible for
detecting over 40,000 concealed humans and seizures of U.S.
currency. It detected U.S. currency worth more than $33 million
in fiscal year 2004.
During fiscal year 2004, the canine enforcement program was
accountable for over 68,000 quarantine material interceptions
of plant materials and over 17,900 quarantine material
interceptions of animal products with a combined weight of over
6,500 pounds.
Beginning next month, CBP canine team training will be
realigned and consolidated under CBP's Office of Training and
Development. It is important to note that the operational
control in the field will be retained by the Offices of Field
Operations and Border Patrol.
This consolidation of canine training is a major step for
CBP toward our goal of forging a single, unified border
enforcement agency for the United States and gaining
efficiencies whenever possible. It is a good fit and it makes
sense.
CBP's Office of Training and Development already manages
most of CBP's training, including basic and advanced training
for CBP officers at the port of entry and border patrol agents
and between the ports.
The merging of the canine training program will not only
contribute to the efficiency of the training program, but it
will ultimately contribute to the operational efficiency and
the training nomenclature, training processes and certification
process will be unified, as appropriate.
Migration of the CBP canine training program toward common
language in training processes will enhance the ability of the
Office of Border Patrol or Office of Field Operations' canine
teams to jointly respond to major threats or initiatives.
CBP has invested a lot of time and effort in examining how
best to manage its two legacy canine team programs. Over a
period of several months, subject matter experts from the
Office of Field Operations and the Office of Border Patrol, as
well as other senior staff from throughout CBP, examined all
aspects of CBP's canine programs and identified a number of
best practices from across our agency.
Under CBP's new model, operators retain control of canine
field operations and training assets are consolidated under a
single canine team training program.
As a result, CBP's capacity to train canine teams will
increase, and canine team training will be improved by
promulgating state of the art training techniques and the best
practices that evolved in both historically separate training
programs.
Currently CBP has approximately 1,187 canine teams deployed
around the country. Our canine teams consist of about 50
percent human detection narcotic teams, approximately 40
percent narcotic detector dog teams, and the remaining teams
are of other disciplines.
CBP estimates that its new consolidated training program
will train 246 teams in fiscal year 2006, expandable to some
extent with the addition of resources.
Although CBP's canine teams came from legacy agencies, all
the teams receive formal training and certification through
fully mature, highly respected courses of instruction.
Canine teams are trained and certified and deployed in one
or more of the following disciplines: field human detection,
narcotic detection, explosive detection, detection of U.S.
currency, cadaver detection, detection of prohibited
agriculture products, open field tracking and trailing, and the
detection of chemicals associated with weapons of mass
destruction.
All canine enforcement teams are certified prior to field
deployment and are subject to regular training maintenance
requirements and undergo performance evaluations to maintain
certification of their detection capability, with the exception
of CBP's explosive dogs that undergo a semiannual
certification.
CBP maintains accurate records on the performance of each
team, and CBP canine teams answer to the same rules,
regulations and supervisory chain of command as the rest of the
operational workforce.
Each supervisor exercising control over canine enforcement
teams is required to observe detector dog performance and
proficiency training during employment. Supervisors responsible
for canine enforcement teams ensure that each officer conducts
mandatory proficiency training.
CBP has also developed a training course designed for CBP's
first and second line supervisors on all aspects of the proper
use and deployment of canine teams. Canine teams assigned to
airports and seaports examine vessels, baggage, cargo, mail and
passengers. Teams stationed and land border crossings devote
their time to examining vehicles and merchandise entering the
United States.
Canine teams can be utilized to search for a trained odor
in almost any area imaginable. During every work day, canine
teams conduct training exercises to enhance the dogs'
performance in the work environment.
Canine teams are a wonderful tool able to detect potential
terrorists or concealed contraband hidden from view, using only
the most basic tools of common sense at one end of the leash
and amazing sense of smell at the other end.
It is important to note that our canine teams have a
special niche in our border enforcement strategy and is so far
unchallenged by any competing technology. No machine can match
the speed, accuracy and flexibility of a canine team searching
for hidden narcotic, humans, currency, explosives or pests in
the hectic environment that exists in airports, seaports, land
ports or border patrol checkpoints.
For example, at border ports, the canine team can examine a
vehicle in five to 6 minutes. Even a cursory search by a CBP
officer without a canine would require at least 20 minutes.
Canines can check packages in a fraction of the time needed by
mail examiners. A canine team can process 400 or 500 packages
in approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
For all their strengths, canine teams also have their
limitations. Canine teams are also partnerships bonding one
human and one animal. The strength of that partnership makes
them effective, but canines and humans are live creatures and
not interchangeable machine parts.
That is, handlers and canines are not instantly
interchangeable with other handlers and other canines. No part
of CBP works harder or achieves more spectacular results than
our enthusiastic, energetic effective canine teams. As canine
handlers would tell you, this is not a job, it is a passion.
Any factor that can effect a human or a canine, including
heat, cold, fatigue, illness or age, can affect canine team
performance. CBP's canine program is well known in the
community as the benchmark by which other canine programs are
measured.
During fiscal year 2004, Customs and Border Protection
signed a memorandum agreement with the United States Coast
Guard. Under this MOA, CBP has already trained explosive dogs
for the U.S. Coast Guard, and CBP stands ready to train all
future Coast Guard narcotic and explosive detector dog teams.
Throughout 2005, CBP's canine enforcement program will
continue to work with other federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies to develop training strategies and
protocols based on real-world threats and intelligence trends.
Most notable were CBP's sustained cooperative efforts with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Transportation
Security Administration and the United States Coast Guard.
CBP recognized canine teams serve in an important role in
CBP's enforcement operations. CBP is continuously evaluating
the efficiency of all its tools and making informed choices
about the right mix of personnel, technology, equipment and
infrastructure.
Based on CBP's recent review of canine operations and
canine team training, it is certain that canine teams will
continue to play an important role in CBP for the foreseeable
future.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be
happy to answer any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Titus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lee Titus
Good Morning, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meek, Members of the
Subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss
the training of canine teams within U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP).
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Committee for
holding this hearing on canine teams, helping us to bring attention to
the accomplishments of this important program and the issues facing the
program, to the forefront.
CBP's canine law enforcement program--one of several such
Department of Homeland Security canine programs that both protects life
and property and contributes to the Department's law enforcement and
anti-terrorism missions--is the largest federal canine law enforcement
program in the United States. CBP has trained and deployed thousands of
canine teams in support of our anti-terrorism and traditional missions
over the years. Working together at and between our Nation's official
ports of entry, our canine teams are a critical component in CBP's
layered approach to border protection and our ability to secure our
border, protect our homeland and defend against the threats posed by
potential terrorists, explosives, chemical weapons, illegal aliens,
narcotics, and harmful agricultural pests and products.
The canine enforcement program is responsible for a significant
proportion of narcotic seizures made by Customs and Border Protection
at ports of entry, checkpoints, and between official ports of entry,
accounting for more than 11,600 narcotic seizures totaling over
1,804,196 pounds of narcotics in FY 2004. The canine enforcement
program was also responsible for detecting 40,296 concealed humans and
the seizures of U.S. currency worth $33 million in FY 2004. During FY
2004 the canine enforcement program was accountable for over 68,512
Quarantine Material Interceptions of plant products and over 17,956
Quarantine Material Interceptions of animal products with a combined
weight of 6,552 pounds.
Beginning next month, CBP canine team training will be realigned
and consolidated under CBP's Office of Training and Development. It is
important to note that operational control in the field will be
retained by the Offices of Field Operations and Border Patrol. This
consolidation of canine training is a major step for CBP toward our
goal of forging a single, unified border enforcement agency for the
United States and gaining efficiencies wherever possible. It is a good
fit, and it makes sense; CBP's Office of Training and Development
already manages most of CBP's training, including basic and advanced
training for CBP Officers at the ports of entry and Border Patrol
Agents in between the ports. The merging of the canine training
program will not only contribute to the efficiency of the training
program but will also ultimately contribute to operational efficiency
in that the training nomenclature and training processes will be
unified as appropriate. Migration of the CBP Canine Training program
toward common language and training processes will enhance the ability
of Office of Border Patrol or Office of Field Operations Canine Teams
to jointly respond to major threats or initiatives.
CBP has invested a lot of time and effort in examining how best to
manage its two legacy canine team programs. Over a period of several
months, subject matter experts from the Office of Field Operations and
the Office of Border Patrol as well as other senior staff from
throughout CBP, examined all aspects of CBP's canine programs and
identified a number of best practices from across our agency. Under
CBP's new model, operators retain control of canine field operations,
and training assets are consolidated under a single canine team
training program. As a result, CBP's capacity to train canine teams
will increase, and canine team training will be improved by
promulgating state-of-the-art training techniques and the best
practices that evolved in both historically separate training programs.
Currently, CBP has approximately 1,187 canine teams deployed around
the country. Our K-9 teams consist of 50% human detection/narcotic
teams, approximately 40% are narcotic detection teams, and the
remaining teams are other disciplines. CBP estimates that its new
consolidated training program will train 246 teams in FY 2006,
expandable to some extent with the addition of resources.
Although, CBP's canine teams came from legacy agencies, all of the
teams receive formal training and certification through fully mature,
highly respected courses of instruction. Canine teams are trained,
certified and deployed in one or more detection disciplines: concealed
human detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, detection of
currency, cadaver detection, detection of prohibited agricultural
products, open field tracking and trailing and the detection of
chemicals associated with weapons of mass destruction.
All canine enforcement teams are certified prior to field
deployment; are subject to regular training maintenance requirements,
and undergo annual performance evaluations to maintain certification of
their detection capability. CBP maintains accurate records on the
performance of each team, and CBP canine teams answer to the same
rules, regulations and supervisory chain-of-command as the rest of the
operational workforce.
Each supervisor exercising control over canine enforcement teams is
required to observe detector dog performance during employment and
proficiency training. Supervisors responsible for canine enforcement
teams ensure that each officer conducts mandatory proficiency training.
Canine Teams assigned to airports and seaports examine vessels,
baggage, cargo, mail, and passengers. Teams stationed at land border
crossings devote their time to examining vehicles and merchandise
entering the United States. Canine teams can be utilized to search for
a trained odor in most any area imaginable. During every workday,
canine teams conduct training exercises to enhance the dog's
performance in the work environment. Canine teams are a wonderful tool,
able to detect potential terrorists and concealed contraband hidden
from view, using only the most basic of tools, common sense at one end
of the leash and an amazing sense of smell at the other end.
It is also important to note that our canine teams have a special
niche in our border enforcement strategy, a niche that so far is
unchallenged by any competing technology. No machine can match the
speed, accuracy and flexibility of a canine team searching for hidden
narcotics, humans, currency, explosives, or pests in the hectic
environment that exists in airports, seaports, land ports or Border
Patrol checkpoints. For example, at border ports a canine team can
examine a vehicle in 5 to 6 minutes. Even a cursory search by a CBP
Officer without a canine would require at least 20 minutes. Canines can
check packages in a fraction of the time needed by mail examiners. A
canine team can process 400 to 500 packages in approximately 30
minutes.
For all their strengths, canine teams also have limitations. Canine
teams are also partnerships bonding one human and one animal. The
strength of that partnership makes them effective; but canines and
humans are live creatures and not interchangeable machine parts. That
is, handlers and canines are not instantly interchangeable with other
handlers and other canines. No part of CBP works harder or achieves
more spectacular results than our enthusiastic, energetic, and
effective canine teams. As canine handlers will tell you, this is not a
job, it's a passion. Any factor that can affect a human or a canine,
including heat, cold, fatigue, illness or age can affect canine team
performance.
CBP's Canine program is well known in the canine community as the
benchmark that other canine programs are measured. During FY 2004,
Customs and Border Protection signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the United States Coast Guard. Under this MOA, CBP stands ready to
train all future Coast Guard narcotic and explosive detector dog teams.
Throughout 2005 the CBP's Canine Enforcement Program continued to work
with other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to develop
training strategies and protocols based on real-world threats and
intelligence trends. Most notable were CBP's sustained cooperative
efforts with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Transportation
and Security Administration, and the United States Coast Guard.
CBP recognizes canine teams serve an important role in CBP's
enforcement operations, but CBP is continuously evaluating the efficacy
of all its tools, and making informed choices about the right mix of
personnel, technology, equipment, and infrastructure. Based on CBP's
recent review of canine operations and canine team training, it is
certain that canine teams will continue to play an important role in
CBP for the foreseeable future.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Titus.
The Chair would once again remind the witnesses that your
full statement can be submitted for the record. We just ask you
to give us a synopsis in 5 minutes or less, because we really
want to get to questions. You know a lot of answers that we
would like to probe.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. David Kontny, Director of the
National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program at the
Transportation Security Administration of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, for his statement.
Mr. Kontny?
STATEMENT OF DAVID KONTNY
Mr. Kontny. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Meek
and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to have the
opportunity today to discuss our efforts relating to the
National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program.
Explosive detection canine teams are a proven, reliable and
cost-effective solution to the detection of explosives. They
form a vital component in our system of systems to detect and
deter against terrorist acts upon our nation's transportation
systems.
One key advantage of deploying canines is that this is a
flexible, omnimodal capability. The canine teams could move
throughout the system and they can also post at multiple points
during periods that vary from shift and day by day.
This variability in locations and times for the use of
canine teams adds an important element of unpredictability to
enhance security.
TSA has worked aggressively to expand the explosive
detection capabilities in the civil aviation environment by
doubling capacity since the September 11th attacks.
Currently, TSA deploys 345 detection canine teams at 66 of
the nation's busiest airports. With our continuing expansion,
we expect by the end of the year 420 canine teams will be
authorized at 82 airports around the country.
TSA is also working to greatly expand the use of explosive
detection canine teams in the mass transit environment,
especially in light of the March 2004 attacks in Madrid and the
July 2005 bombings in London.
Since 1998, we have partnered with the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority to deploy teams there, and we are
pleased to announce that we have selected an additional 10
transit and light rail systems to receive three TSA-certified
detection canine teams each, for a total of 30 teams.
TSA is currently in the final stages of signing cooperative
agreements with these mass transit and light rail systems which
outline the terms and conditions under which they will
participate.
Partnership with stakeholders, especially law enforcement
and transportation authorities where TSA-certified explosive
detection canine teams are deployed, is key to the program's
success. Each canine team is composed of a dog provided by TSA
and a handler who is actually employed by the local law
enforcement agency or transportation authority.
TSA enters into a cooperative agreement with the local law
enforcement and transportation authorities under which TSA
provide the dog, associated training of the handler, explosive
training aids and technical assistance at no cost to the
participating agency.
In turn, the local jurisdiction agrees to utilize TSA
canine teams at least 80 percent of the time in the
transportation environment and to maintain a minimum of three
certified teams available for around-the-clock incident
response.
TSA also provides monetary reimbursement for the local
jurisdiction in the amount of $40,000 per canine team per year
to help defray costs such as provision of proper kennel
facilities, vehicles to transport the canines, and veterinary
care for the canines as well as a portion of the handler's
salary.
Prior to actual deployment, canines and their handlers
undergo an extensive training course at the TSA Explosives
Detection Canine Handler Course located with the Department of
Defense Military Working Dog School at Lackland Air Force Base
in San Antonio, Texas.
During the 10-week-long course, handlers develop handler
skills, learn about explosives handling, safety and
transportation requirements and explosives contamination issues
while operating in their environment and become familiar with
the administrative requirements of the program, including
proper use of online applications designed to monitor day-to-
day canine performance.
Once a team graduates from the initial training course, the
team is given an initial certification and an assigned airport.
Each newly deployed canine team must then complete a 14-day
training mission in the operational environment.
Training does not stop upon graduation and initial
certification. The teams undergo several hours of recurrent
proficiency training each week in their operational
environment. The results of each training exercise are recorded
in the TSA canine Web site and are reviewed by TSA headquarters
staff for compliance.
TSA also requires that each team go through an extensive
annual certification process conducted onsite in an operational
environment. The certification is one of the most rigorous
operational tests administered and is designed to evaluate the
team's ability to perform the day-to-day mission of securing
the nation's transportation system.
The high standards we have set and the mechanisms which we
put in place ensure that proper training, certification and
oversight of the canine teams have enabled the National
Explosives Detection Canine Team Program to become recognized
as a leader in the canine community with whom other federal
agencies, such as the Federal Protective Service, United States
Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection and their
counterparts from abroad, are eager to partner.
TSA greatly appreciates the funding that Congress has
provided to support the efforts I have described above in the
airport and mass terminal environment.
In addition, Congress also has provided funding this fiscal
year to support our efforts in the air cargo area, which
include, among other things, an analysis of an operational test
and evaluation of TSA-certified canine teams' ability to detect
explosives in various cargo and mail configurations and the
installation of a new cargo training lab in San Antonio, Texas.
For 2006, the president's budget requests $19 million to
continue support of the program in the airport environment. TSA
is eager to work with Congress to ensure the explosive
detection canine programs relating to air cargo and mass
transit will continue to be adequately supported.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek and other members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I would
be pleased at this time to answer any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Kontny follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Kontny
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you
with my colleagues from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) to discuss
the use of canines in deterring, detecting, and preventing potential
terrorist attacks.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administers the
National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP), one of the
largest explosives detection canine programs in the Federal government,
second only to the Department of Defense (DOD). The purpose of this
program is to deter and detect the introduction of explosives devices
into the transportation system. TSA has worked aggressively to expand
canine explosives detection capabilities in the civil aviation
environment by doubling capacity since the September 11 attacks. While
these efforts will continue, we are also working to expand our
capabilities in other modes of transportation. TSA recognizes that
canine teams are one of our most mobile explosives detection tools and
is working steadfastly to take full advantage of the multi-faceted
capabilities that canine teams provide.
Currently TSA has deployed 345 explosives detection canine teams at
66 of the Nation's busiest airports (Category X and Category I) and one
mass transit system (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA)). Our on-going Phase III expansion within the aviation sector
will bring this total to 82 airports and 420 canine teams. These teams
are deployed in support of day-to-day activities within the airport and
mass transit environment (MARTA) to search aircraft, vehicles,
terminals, warehouses (cargo), checked baggage, and subway systems.
Each canine team is composed of one dog provided by TSA and one
handler employed by the local law enforcement or transportation
authority that has volunteered and partnered to participate with the
NEDCTP. Under a Cooperative Agreement executed with each local law
enforcement or transportation authority with whom TSA has agreed to
provide certified canines, the local jurisdiction agrees to utilize
TSA-certified canine teams at least 80% of the time in the
transportation environment and to maintain a minimum of three TSA-
certified canine teams available around-the-clock for incident
response. The remaining 20% of the time allows local agencies to use
these resources to execute other community activities such as response
to bomb threats, searches for high profile events, and other law
enforcement activities that would require the use of an explosives
detection canine team. TSA provides the dog, associated training of the
handler, explosives training aids, and technical assistance at no cost
to the participating agency and provides monetary reimbursement to the
local jurisdiction, in the amount of $40,000 per canine team per year
to help defray costs such as the provision of proper kennel facilities,
vehicles to transport canine teams, and veterinary care for the
canines, as well as a portion of the handlers' salaries.
The NEDCTP supports an extensive infrastructure in order to
accomplish required training of explosives detection canine teams and
to monitor their performance. The program requirements, which include
an intensive training regimen, periodic evaluation, and annual
certification, are essential to assuring quality control over the
program. The high standards that we have set and maintained and the
mechanisms we have put in place to ensure thorough oversight have
enabled the NEDCTP to become recognized as a leader in the canine
community with whom other Federal agencies and our counterparts from
abroad are eager to partner.
Handlers and canines undergo initial training at the TSA Explosives
Detection Canine Handler Course co-located at the DOD Military Working
Dog School, at Lackland Air Force Base, in San Antonio, TX. Under this
arrangement, TSA has shared use of U.S. Air Force training facilities
and the United States Army Veterinarian Medical facilities. TSA
controls the course curriculum and the certification requirements of
the teams to meet TSA-certification standards. This results in a
tremendous cost savings for TSA. The training course and facilities in
San Antonio are considered to be the ``Center of Excellence'' for
canine training.
TSA has adopted a three-prong approach to canine procurement in
order to ensure an adequate number of canines are available for
training and subsequent deployment. This three-prong approach includes
partnering with DOD during canine ``buy trips'', use of U.S. canine
vendors, and the TSA Puppy Program. The TSA Puppy Program is a direct
result of our consultation with the Australian government and is
modeled after the successful Australian Customs Service National
Breeding Program. The Puppy Program could not be accomplished without
the support of the San Antonio and Austin Texas communities as each of
the puppies are placed in a foster home with local community members. I
would like to publicly acknowledge their outstanding support to this
program. In addition, as a reminder of the legacy of the victims of the
9/11 attacks and our continued efforts in the fight against terrorism,
each puppy is named after a victim of those attacks.
The initial training of the handler and canine consists of a 10-
week training course, during which handlers develop handler skills;
learn about explosives handling, safety and transportation
requirements, and explosives contamination issues within the operating
environment; and become familiar with administrative requirements of
the program, including proper use of on-line applications designed to
monitor day-to-day canine performance. Once a team graduates from the
initial training course, the team is given an initial certification at
an assigned airport. Each newly deployed canine team must then complete
a 14-day training mission in the operating environment before given
full certification.
Training does not stop upon graduation and initial certification.
The teams undergo several hours of recurrent proficiency training each
week in their operational environment, which includes all the smells
and distractions associated with a busy transportation system. This
training is ``objective based'' where the handler/trainer must set a
training problem up that enhances the team's capabilities or is used to
correct a minor discrepancy that was noted during an evaluation or
previous training scenario. The training is conducted utilizing canine
training aids procured and prepared by TSA, which characterize real
threats. The results of each training exercise are recorded in the TSA
Canine Web Site (CWS) and are reviewed by TSA headquarters staff for
compliance.
TSA also requires each team to go through an intensive annual
certification process. These certifications are conducted on site in an
operational environment within a three-four day period. The
certification is one of the most rigorous operational tests
administered and is designed to evaluate the team's ability to perform
their day-to-day mission of securing the nation's transportation
system.
For FY 05, TSA has been appropriated $22 million to administer the
NEDCTP. Within this amount, $17 million is dedicated to steadily
increase the number of teams deployed at airports. As indicated
earlier, we currently have 345 explosives detection canine teams
deployed at 66 airports and one mass transit system, and we are
continuing our progress to attain an authorized strength of 420 canine
teams deployed at 82 airports by the end of this calendar year.
TSA also recognizes the importance of dedicating explosives
detection canine teams to provide a timely and mobile response option
to threats arising in other modes of transportation, especially in
light of the March, 2004, attacks in Madrid and the July, 2005,
bombings in London. Within the $22 million appropriated for FY 05, $2
million is dedicated to supporting expansion of the NEDCTP into
additional mass transit/light rail systems. Currently TSA is working
towards providing ten mass transit systems with three TSA-certified
explosives detection canine teams each, for a total of 30 teams. The
ten systems have been identified based on a comparative analysis of the
size of the systems according to passenger ridership, location of the
nation's critical infrastructure in the transit sector, threats in the
transit sector, and other security criteria. Additional information on
this initiative was provided to potential participants at the Mass
Transit Stakeholders Summit held on August 10, 2005. TSA is in
continuing discussions with stakeholders to finalize the terms and
conditions under which the transit agencies would participate in the
NEDCTP. These agreements would closely mirror those that TSA has
entered into with airports.
Explosives detection canine teams bring technical capability,
mobility, and flexibility to security--attributes essential in
protecting network systems. The canine teams can move throughout the
system, and they can also post at multiple points during time periods
that vary by shift and by day. This variability in locations and times
for use of canine teams adds an important element of unpredictability
to enhance security. TSA is working to take full advantage of the
flexible, omni-modal capability that canine teams afford. We have
worked with all participants in the NEDCTP to acclimate their teams to
various transportation systems that they may be asked to support so
that teams can be rapidly re-deployed to other transportation sectors
should threat conditions deem such measures appropriate. This has
enabled TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams to be shifted
as a Rapid Deployment Force to support security efforts at mass transit
systems, bus terminals, and general aviation locations during National
Special Security Events, including the G-8 Summit, both national
political conventions in 2004, and the Inauguration festivities.
In addition, the FY 05 appropriations contained $3 million to
support TSA canine explosives detection activities relating to air
cargo. In 2004, TSA conducted an Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E)
of a TSA-certified canine team's ability to detect explosives in
various cargo and mail configurations. The OT&E concluded in August,
2004, and the preliminary results were promising. TSA is further
analyzing the data from the OT&E and will make recommendations on
whether explosives detection canine teams should be incorporated, along
with other systems and technologies, into the screening of cargo and
mail transported on passenger aircraft. As a result of the OT&Es, the
NEDCTP has partnered with our Aviation Cargo section to develop a
comprehensive list of activities to enhance canine detection
capabilities and deployment options within the cargo environment. One
of these activities is our new Cargo Training Lab in San Antonio, which
is designed to replicate a cargo warehouse environment.
For FY 06, the President's budget includes $19 million, which will
permit continued support of the NEDCTP in the airport environment. TSA
greatly appreciates Congress' assistance in funding the NEDCTP,
particularly those activities relating to mass transit and air cargo.
As indicated earlier, canine teams will be deployed at 10 transit
systems in the very near future. TSA will work with Congress to ensure
that explosives detection canine programs relating to air cargo and
mass transit will continue to be adequately supported. The TSA Canine
Support Branch currently has the physical capacity to train 108 new
canine teams during each calendar year.
Explosives detection canine teams are a proven, reliable, and cost-
effective solution for the detection of explosives, and they form a key
component of the Department's threat-based risk management approach to
homeland security. In close partnership with airport and other
stakeholder operators, TSA has worked to steadily increase the number
of teams available to address the threat of explosives being introduced
into the transportation sector. While this work will continue, special
emphasis is now being placed to rapidly increase the number of canine
teams that are deployed to modes other than aviation and to maximize
the flexible, multi-modal capability that canine teams afford. The
formation of the Department of Homeland Security Rapid Deployment Force
for mass transit canine and our recent efforts to co-sponsor regional
training sessions with the ATFE are examples of Federal agencies
working together to leverage both training and operational resources.
The recent completion of the TSA Canine Explosives Storage and
Characterization Facility and the centralized procurement, packaging
and delivery of canine training aids are other examples of departmental
leveraging. In addition, TSA has partnered with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and National Institute of Justice to sponsor the
Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detection Guidelines to
enhance the performance of detector dog teams.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased at
this time to answer any questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Kontny.
The Chair now recognizes Special Agent Terry Bohan, Chief
of the National Canine Training and Operations Support Branch
at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of
the Department of Homeland Security, for his statement.
STATEMENT OF TERRY BOHAN
Chief Bohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Meek, and members
of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on behalf of the men and women of ATF.
ATF has over 500 canine handler teams deployed with
federal, state, local and law enforcement agencies. We have
trained explosives detection canines, or EDCs, for the FBI, the
U.S. Marshals Service, the IRS, FEMA and 16 foreign countries.
ATF has placed trained canines in 41 states and the Virgin
Islands.
The trademark of ATF's canine program is the exclusive use
of Labrador Retrievers. ATF acquires the canines from various
guide dog foundations and trains the animals as EDCs. The
program also combines ATF's specialized experience in
explosives investigations with the knowledge of our forensic
chemists and accredited national laboratory.
The annual certification that our canines must pass has
been independently validated by Oak Ridge National
Laboratories. Our canines also routinely participate in in-
service training and evaluations.
ATF's canine training facility is located in rural Virginia
with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility. This year
ATF will train approximately 26 foreign canine teams and 36
teams for federal, state and local agencies.
ATF is reimbursed by the State Department's Antiterrorism
Assistance Program for all costs associated with training
foreign countries. U.S. agencies receive their canines and
training at no charge in exchange for assisting ATF when
needed.
ATF's EDC program supports multiple missions working
closely with other federal, state and local agencies to ensure
national security. ATF is often called upon to deploy a large
number of canine teams to both national security events and
other venues.
ATF canines also support ATF's mission in enforcing
criminal statutes, combating explosives and firearms violence.
From January of 2000 to December of 2003, there were nearly
3,000 bombings in the United States, causing 334 injuries, 51
deaths and nearly $27 million in damage.
Since the beginning of fiscal year 2004, ATF canine teams
have handled over 800 deployments to prevent or investigate
terrorism or violent crimes, including providing assistance to
the Iraqi police service and the U.S. military in Iraq.
Since September 11th, 2001, the need for a national
standard for EDCs became more important. ATF developed a
national odor recognition standard in 1996 at the direction of
Congress. ATF has been working with various organizations to
more widely implement those standards.
Following ATF's move to the Department of Justice under the
Homeland Security Act, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft
issued a directive regarding explosives jurisdiction which,
among other things, directed that as soon as practicable all
Justice Department components that use explosives detection
canines are to use only canines certified by ATF.
ATF's national odor recognition testing, or NORT, is a
critical aspect of fulfilling the attorney general's directive.
More than 50 percent of all law enforcement canine teams are
not associated with a federal canine training program or
certification. In fact, there is no consistent definition of
what even constitutes an explosives detection canine or
training.
Furthermore, the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory
Board has acknowledged the need for testing of EDCs and has
asked ATF to address this issue. ATF is in a unique position to
address this public safety issue, and we hope to make the test
available to all canine teams in the future.
NORT will develop and nurture collaborative partnerships
through training with other agencies, all of whom are, in one
form or another, responsible for protecting the public against
the threat of violent crime and terrorism.
Finally, ATF continues to combat terrorism and ensure
public safety by supporting the efforts of other agencies
currently that use EDCs that are not trained by ATF. During
this past year, ATF has provided training to non-ATF trained
canines by holding seminars and training sessions.
Additionally, ATF has provided training on peroxide
explosives for Washington, D.C.-area canines and at this moment
is conducting the same training in New Jersey for canines of
the New York City area.
We continue to work on other training issues such as safe
handling of explosives and canine deployment techniques to
improve the human side of the equation and increase public
safety in the process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The statement of Chief Bohan follows:]
Prepared Sttement of Terry Bohan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Meek, and members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of
the men and women of ATF and ATF's National Canine Training and
Operations Support Branch.
By way of background, ATF has been training canines since 1984,
dating from our relationship with the Connecticut State Police and the
training of the first accelerant detection canine, ``Nellie.'' Since
1995, ATF has trained 36 classes of explosives detection canines at our
National Canine Training Center in Front Royal, Virginia. Currently, we
have deployed over 500 explosives detection canines worldwide with
State, local, Federal, and foreign law enforcement agencies. We have
trained explosives detection canines for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Marshals Service,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, other government agencies, and
16 foreign countries through the State Department's Anti-Terrorism
Assistance Program. Training canines for other Federal, State, local
and foreign law enforcement agencies is a major component of our
mission, which in turn supports our Strategic Goals of protecting the
public and reducing violent crime.
ATF's explosives detection canines training methodology was
developed and is overseen by ATF's forensic chemists and our nationally
accredited explosives lab. The testing of the methodology has been
independently validated by the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge
National Laboratories. It is estimated that there are more than 19,000
known explosives compositions worldwide. This number makes it
impossible to train a canine on all these compositions individually.
However, the vast majority of explosives are composed of a relatively
small number of explosive chemicals or ingredients. Because of this,
ATF trains on five basic families of explosive chemicals, enabling ATF
explosives detection canines to detect a very wide range of explosives
formulations. This ensures that the canines can detect explosives
compounds to which they have never previously been exposed. For
example, in the case of water gel or emulsion type explosives, whether
the explosive is Tovex Austin Emulex, or any of several thousand
commercial blasting or improvised explosive ANFO mixtures of this type,
the one common ingredient is ammonium nitrate. Rather than concentrate
just on individual brands, which may contain proprietary formulas, by
training the canine to detect ammonium nitrate, we can, in effect,
cover the whole family of products which might contain ammonium
nitrate. In fact, during the final certification, the canines are
tested on some explosive materials they have not seen in training.
Moreover, ATF systematically trains canines on peroxide explosives,
which have been used in several terrorist attacks.
To ensure the canine's continued high level of performance, ATF
hosts a mandatory annual recertification/training seminar for each
U.S.-based ATF-trained canine team (handler and canine). During this
recertification, the team's proficiency is tested and the handler's
extensive training log for the previous year is reviewed. The canine
teams are also continually evaluated for their operational proficiency
by ATF during in-service training sessions.
While other breeds of canines may possess the temperament and
qualities for explosive detection, ATF only uses the Labrador
retriever. We have found that they are a hearty, intelligent breed that
is readily adaptable to changing environments and they possess a gentle
disposition which allows for multiple teams to work in close proximity
to each other. This allows for teams to work in crowds and around
children, for example, which we find to be highly complementary to
ATF's diverse and worldwide mission.
ATF obtains its canines from guide dog foundations. Volunteers
called ``puppy raisers'' keep the canines in their homes from 8 weeks
to 14 months of age. These families give their time and love to the
puppies so they can be properly socialized and acclimated to the family
environment. The families housebreak the canines, expose them to real
world environments, and ensure that they receive all their
vaccinations. Occasionally, however, a canine does not meet the
requirements of a guide dog. Undesirable traits in a guide dog, such as
curiosity and eagerness, are precisely the qualities that ATF seeks for
an explosives detection canine. The guide dog organization then
notifies ATF, and ATF trainers examine the canine to identify its
potential as an explosives detection canine. The excellent quality of
canines procured and the training methodology ATF uses have resulted in
a proven track record of a 7--to 9--year working life of the canine.
Throughout the canine's working career and beyond in retirement, the
canine resides in the handler's home as a trusted partner and family
member.
The ATF Canine Training Facility and Kennel are located in Front
Royal, Virginia, on the grounds of the 250-acre U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Canine Training Facility. The 14,000-square-foot training
building allows for climate controlled, year-round training. The state-
of-the art kennel can accommodate 100 canines and incorporates the
latest technology in kennel design. ATF's canine training program
trains both explosives detection and accelerant detection canines. In
addition to the basic canine and handler training programs that occur
throughout the year, this facility is used as the site of annual
recertification training for all ATF-trained canines operating
domestically. This facility also provides an appropriate location for
the continuing development and enhancement of testing, operational and
tactical protocols for our canine teams.
This year, ATF will train approximately 26 foreign explosives
detection canines for the State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance
program and 34 such teams for Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies. The student handler classes are mixed to foster greater
relationships and collaboration among domestic and foreign law
enforcement agencies. Domestically, ATF evaluates applicant State and
local agencies to ensure that they have the need for and the means to
physically support a canine/handler team when selecting students for
the program. Federal, State, and local law enforcement trainees attend
training and receive a canine at no charge to their agency. Foreign law
enforcement agencies receive canines through a reimbursable agreement
between ATF and the State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance
program. Critical in this arrangement is the agreement made between ATF
and the student's agency that the agency receiving the training will
assist ATF with investigations, when called upon, for a period of 5
years. In fact, foreign ATF-trained canine/handler teams responded to
assist with security for the 2002 Salt Lake City and 1996 Atlanta
Olympic Games, as well as Olympics held in other countries.
While a number of Federal agencies utilize explosives detection
canines, each is unique to its own particular missions, such as
protecting the Nation's airports or enforcing border security. ATF's
explosives detection canines program supports multiple missions and
works in an impressive variety of venues: from scouring bomb scenes to
assisting in search warrant executions; and supporting State and local
law enforcement with canine teams for major sporting events. ATF is
also able to deploy large numbers of canines, when requested, to
National Special Security Events and other major gatherings, such as
the G-8 Conference, Presidential inaugurations, Super Bowls, and the
World Series. ATF canines, of course, also support ATF's mission in
enforcing criminal statutes combating explosives and firearms violence.
From January 2000 to December 2003, there were nearly 3,000 bombings in
the United States, with 334 injuries, 51 deaths, and nearly $27 million
in damage. Many times ATF explosives detection canines or accelerant
canine detection of evidence in explosives, firearms, or arson
investigations has contributed to successful prosecutions. These
canines are stationed throughout the United States in ATF offices,
local police department and bomb squads, other Federal agencies, and
foreign government agencies. Since the beginning of FY 2004, ATF canine
teams have handled over 800 deployments domestically and
internationally to prevent or investigate terrorism and violent crimes,
including providing assistance to the Iraqi Police Service and the U.S.
military in Iraq. ATF explosives detection canines are providing
support to other U.S. government agencies in Iraq to protect American
lives and property.
In supporting the Department of Justice in its goal of combating
terrorism, ATF canines have played a significant role. While deployed
on missions, ATF canine teams have recovered improvised explosive
devices, explosives materials, post-blast evidence, firearms, shell
casings, and ammunition. ATF canine teams have made recoveries and
contributed to recent high profile cases such as the Washington, DC,
area sniper investigations, when an ATF canine team was instrumental in
finding shell casings.
With the increased levels of security in the United States since
September 11, 2001, the country has seen a dramatic increase in the
number of explosives detection canines being used by law enforcement
and private companies. A common question is whether there is a need for
national standards for explosives detection canines. In 1996, Congress
directed ATF, through the Treasury Secretary, to develop national odor
recognition standards for explosives detection canines. ATF set interim
standards in 1997, and has been working with various organizations
since then to more widely implement the standards. With ATF's move to
the Department of Justice under the Homeland Security Act, then-
Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum on August 11, 2004,
regarding explosives investigation jurisdiction which, among other
things, directed that as soon as practicable, all Justice Department
components that use explosives detection canines are to use only ATF-
certified canines. ATF's National Odor Recognition Testing (``NORT'')
is a critical aspect of fulfilling the Attorney General' directive.
In response to the growing demand nationwide for explosives
detection canines, as well as concerns about the quality of canines
being procured by law enforcement agencies from non-governmental
sources, ATF is taking steps to provide more assistance to other State,
local, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This includes providing
training and knowledge to help law enforcement agencies have proficient
explosives detection canines and give them the ability to evaluate and
rectify shortcoming.
More than 50 percent of all law enforcement canine teams are not
associated with a recognized Federal canine training program or
certification. There are numerous private vendors selling explosives
detection canines that have trained those dogs according to a variety
of inconsistent standards and under various conditions. In fact, there
is no consistent definition as to what even constitutes an explosives
detection canine. Because of this lack of consistency, and for safety
reasons, the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board has stated
that they would like every explosives detection canines working in
conjunction with a bomb squad in the United States to have passed a
standard certification. ATF is in a unique position to address this
public safety issue. The formal implementation of ATF's NORT, backed by
hard science in the form of chemistry and administered by experienced
trainers, will greatly enhance public safety as well as help validate
the capabilities of explosives detection canines being used nationally
and internationally as antiterrorist tools. Informal testing began
earlier this year with the use of non-ATF trained explosives detection
canines in order to assess how they would perform. These initial tests
were promising, and as a result, additional EDCs were tested. Based on
these results, ATF offered a successful pilot NORT at our Canine
Training Center on September 20, 2005, with further testing scheduled
in the future.
The NORT will be of tremendous benefit to Federal, State, local,
tribal, and foreign explosives canine programs that choose to
participate. The NORT initiative will allow for the continued
enhancement of explosives investigation expertise within the law
enforcement community. Additionally, NORT will both develop and nurture
collaborative partnerships through training with other agencies, all of
whom are, in one form or another, responsible for protecting the public
against the threat of violent crime and terrorism. This is truly
government at its best.
Finally, ATF continues to combat terrorism and ensure public safety
by supporting the efforts of other agencies that currently lack ATF-
trained canines but utilize explosives detection canines. During this
past year ATF has offered and delivered training to non-ATF trained
canines, by holding seminars and training sessions during meetings of
the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators
(including training on dangerous peroxide explosives). In August of
2005, ATF hosted a training day for Washington, D.C., area canines for
the purpose of exposing the teams to peroxide explosives. As we speak,
ATF is delivering peroxide explosives training to canine teams in New
York City and will conduct the same training next week for the United
States Capitol Police. We have also scheduled explosives safety
training in FY 2006 for canine teams to expose them to a wide array of
live explosives, explosive products, and detonators. We also will cover
safe handling of explosives, improving the human side of the equation
and increasing public safety in the process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I would be
happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Bohan. And I want to correct an
error. You are with the Department of Justice, not the
Department of Homeland Security as I stated in your
introduction.
I would like to start off with a few questions. How many
dogs did you say that you all train in ATF a year?
Chief Bohan. This year, we will train 26 teams for foreign
countries and 36 canine teams for state and local agencies.
Mr. Rogers. So 36 for domestic use.
Chief Bohan. For domestic use, yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Does that meet the demand? Is there more of a
demand than that for your canine teams?
Chief Bohan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. How much more of a demand, just within
your department?
Chief Bohan. I know we have a backlog in requests. Our
schools are full through this next fiscal year and into the
next.
Attachment #1
Agency note: We have 68 qualified applicants pending from Federal,
State and local law enforcement agencies, and can accommodate 50 of
those in Fiscal Year 2006.
Mr. Rogers. And those are two schools, right? How many
schools do you have?
Chief Bohan. Three schools.
Mr. Rogers. Three schools. And I heard you mention the one
in Virginia. Where are the other two?
Chief Bohan. Excuse me, I thought you were talking classes.
We have one canine training facility.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. And three classes within that school?
Chief Bohan. We have scheduled three explosives detection
courses for this fall.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. But you only have that one facility.
Chief Bohan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. All right.
And, Mr. Titus, now, you all have your training program in
El Paso, is that correct?
Mr. Titus. Sir, we have two facilities. We do have the
Canine Enforcement Training Center at Front Royal. That is a
250-acre facility that we own.
Mr. Rogers. And that is where yours is, Mr. Bohan?
Chief Bohan. Yes, sir. We are co-located on Customs and
Border Protection's canine facility.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. But you have separate training programs
in the same facility.
Chief Bohan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
I am sorry, Mr. Titus. You have that one and what else?
Mr. Titus. Yes, sir. We have the National Canine Facility
in El Paso, Texas, as well.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. And I heard you state earlier that you
have trained 1,189 dogs, or that is how many you have in
service now?
Mr. Titus. That is how many we have in service, sir.
Mr. Rogers. How many have you trained through your two
facilities?
Mr. Titus. Between the two facilities, we have probably
trained a little over 200, 220 this year. And for fiscal year
2006 we are looking at about 230.
Mr. Rogers. And that is your capacity each year to turn
out.
Mr. Titus. That is what we are training for CBP. We do have
some additional dogs we are going to be training for state and
locals, and we are doing some training, I believe next month,
for the Brazilian federal police. We are training explosive
dogs for them.
Mr. Rogers. You have 1,189 dogs now in use. Does that meet
your demand with just CBP?
Mr. Titus. That gives us a good edge out there as part of
our layered enforcement approach for canines out there. We are
at 73 ports of entry and 69 checkpoints. That is what we have
today, and that is what we are projecting--we are training
another 230 for next year.
Of the 1,100 we also have to project how many of those dogs
are going to retire the upcoming year and how many dogs we may
have for medical proficiency problems as well.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Mr. Kontny, how many dogs do you all have in service?
Mr. Kontny. Right now, sir, we have 345 teams deployed
across the country.
Mr. Rogers. That is just domestically.
Mr. Kontny. That is domestically, sir, and that includes
San Juan, and we have some over in Hawaii, as well.
Mr. Rogers. And how many do you think you need?
Mr. Kontny. It depends, sir, on what our expansion is.
Obviously, we are going to add the additional 30 teams to the
mass transit systems, as well. It is predicated upon where we
place those allocations and the resources we have available to
train and deploy the teams.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you mentioned 30 teams for mass transit.
Now, I made reference a little while ago of the fact that here
in D.C. we are going to have a team stationed.
Mr. Kontny. Yes, sir, and that will augment the teams that
are already here in place.
Mr. Rogers. All right. I guess my question is, given this
new entire or foray into mass transit venues, do you see the 30
new teams meeting that new demand? It seems an ominous
challenge to me.
Mr. Kontny. Sir, that is the initial deployment opportunity
we had based on the funding that Congress gave us for fiscal
year 2005.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Can you tell me, Mr. Kontny, how you
determine which agencies will receive your dogs?
Mr. Kontny. Yes, sir. The mass transit systems are based on
a threat analysis. We do it on a threat basis. It is a model
that is similar to ODP. We also look at passenger throughput,
the amount of stations that are at each one of those locations.
In the aviation sector, we actually look at the passenger
throughput, again the threat-based matrix on where those
airports are located and how many teams would be responsible to
cover that particular airport.
Mr. Rogers. Does TSA have any plans to expand their canine
training capabilities?
Mr. Kontny. Right now, sir, we have just expanded it. We
actually went from 64 students a year to 108. And we have
additional capacity to be able to expand slightly more.
Mr. Rogers. How quickly can you increase that capacity?
Mr. Kontny. Again, we would have to work through our
partners and with the Department of Defense, but we have
allocated some space and resources to be able to do that in the
future.
Mr. Rogers. But you do not know how quickly you could ramp
up?
Mr. Kontny. No, sir, not a specific time frame.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
I see my time is about to expire, but I have got a lot more
questions. But I will at this time yield to my friend and
colleague, the Ranking Member from Florida, Mr. Meek, for any
questions he may have.
Mr. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass at this time on
my questioning so some of the other members can ask their
questions. If you can come back to me, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Rogers. I will.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, for any questions he
may have.
Mr. Thompson. Well, it looks like we are going to do the--I
am going to pass until the second panel also.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for any
questions that she may have.
Ms. Jackson-Lee. Let me thank the distinguished chairman.
Both of us were on a CODEL that was enormously informative.
And I want to say to the presenters here I do not think
there is anyone opposing that. I have an enormous respect for
the utilization of the canine, the man's and woman's best
friend, in the service of their country.
And I ask your indulgence for a moment. I will be here
throughout the entire hearing and offer my comments on it. But
let me, Mr. Chairman, offer some further comments that I think
are appropriate at this time.
In fact, let me make the nexus of the utilization of these
animals in homeland security--that is, that in the search and
rescue of Hurricane Katrina victims and even survivors the
canine units have been enormously effective. We have seen the
Coast Guard being out front. We thank them very much.
But I think that if you would indulge me again, coming now
from the region of Hurricane Rita and having just been on the
ground in some of the most hardest-hit areas--I was invited to
go into those areas--a number of elected officials--and because
of my service on the Homeland Security Commission--Mr. Chairman
and the ranking member, I really want to make an official
request that in spite of the committee that is now looking at
what happened, I cannot think of a more important
responsibility for the Homeland Security Committee than to
immediately get moving on this disaster.
And I say that for this subcommittee having the key
responsibility--I might to the ranking member, who has been a
leader on this issue, and the chairman and ranking member of
the subcommittee, ranking member of the full committee--
leaders, because we have worked together.
But let me cry out for those who died, family members who
still do not have access to corpses, do not know whether the
individuals are missing or dead. Let me cry out for the people
that I went to heated buildings, not because it was 100 degrees
outside, but because they had no generators, they had no
opportunity to reach anyone to get generators, and they were
the command station.
Let me reach out for people who had to commandeer a hotel
because there was no one to give instructions that this hotel
should be open so that they could have their emergency center.
And let me just say, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I
really am tired of those who are not on the scene to talk about
who should have evacuated. Everybody that was able to evacuate
tried to evacuate.
But what we do not have in our portfolio is to realize that
there is always going to be someone left behind. That is a new
experience for us, because I think Homeland Security was
thinking that if we organize and we get an evacuation plan, we
are just going to be moving with all pistols going.
Some ones are left behind. And so what I confronted were
local officials with no resources and ability to communicate,
no ability to get satellite phones, no ability to get
generators, no ability to get food, no ability to get water, no
ability to get ice.
FEMA personnel on the ground to be commended, flying from
all over the country. But if I might give you a keystone cops
scenario, which is why this management--this committee is so
vital, why the Homeland Security Committee is so vital--because
we live with this all the time.
Let me give you the keystone cops. The FEMA personnel
saying I am in charge of generators but I have got to get the
order from the state in order to move the generators, even
though the county judge is in maybe 150 degree temperature,
with hospitals not functioning, obviously evacuated, some still
left behind.
People gathering around neighborhoods, if you will,
trolling for food, trolling for water, trolling for ice, and
they can not move it because there is nobody to give an order.
Cell phones going dead while we are talking to H-E-B--that
happens to be a food chain--who is saying I can send you bread
and water, and those trucks getting lost because all the
signage is down--so a 30-minute trip may take 1 hour to 2
hours. I wish the canines could help us lead them in.
Mr. Chairman, if there is ever a time now for the new
chairman and yourself and other subcommittees with our ranking
member to say we are in charge--and when I say that, I do not
say it arrogantly. What I am suggesting to you--I left behind
local officials who did their best on the evacuation.
If my city had been hit, I cannot tell you without
exaggerating the loss of life. Why? Because we had people that
were still trying to get out as Hurricane Rita was hitting. We
had to close freeways and say you cannot go up 59 North anymore
because it is getting too close.
Obviously, Hurricane Rita went another direction, but,
frankly, if she had not, we had people on the road--a staff
person with two children and a wife that I told to get out--32
hours--if anybody's from Texas, from Houston to Fort Worth, 32.
So therefore, we would have had--what you saw on CNN was
true. And they would have still been there if Hurricane Rita
and/or Katrina of that magnitude had have come and stayed for a
while. That is a management question.
We have a letter that has come to my attention, and I will
share it with this committee, and I ask unanimous consent to
submit it into the record, dated September 28th from the
secretary of Homeland Security, who is preparing to go forward
with his plan for something called a preparedness directorate
and limiting FEMA to be a recovery and--let me get the words
correct.
Let me keep going. I ask the indulgence of the chair. I
would just simply like to call out what I am seeing here as to
what this is going go be--including infrastructure,
cybersecurity. They are going to be something called a recovery
unit. And there is something called a preparedness directive.
Mr. Chairman, this committee should be engaged. Though we
are not in the business of micromanaging, we have got a crisis
here. So I simply ask this committee, Mr. Chairman, with all
due respect, to make the request for us to look closely at what
is happening.
I would almost ask the chairman to get a response from
Director Paulison, and I will say this as I close. I want to
give him a compliment. Director Paulison was accessible. He was
new on the job but he suffers from the same issue. Who is in
charge?
Maybe the state system is not the best system, because
while we were asking the state, Mr. Chairman, to open the
contraflow lanes, they were in a meeting trying to decide
whether they could open the lanes. And they were in a meeting
deciding whether the military was appropriate vehicle to come
in to help them evacuate persons. Who was in charge?
Who is in charge to get ice and water to a county official
who is calling for it? Who is in charge to release the
generators? I am not going to blame FEMA on this issue. They
were looking for an order. No order came through to them.
So let me just put this in the record: I am writing to
reiterate the department's strong conviction that our proposal
to create a consolidated directorate for preparedness will
greatly strengthen DHS.
I think we should be looking at that, because it wants to
strip FEMA from what I think is an appropriate role for FEMA,
either a leadership cabinet position or certainly a leadership
position, where they can command the respect with the skilled
personnel, Mr. Chairman, professionals who know about emergency
response, such as Mr. Paulison, who is a firefighter of many,
many years.
And I can not imagine that FEMA would simply be a recovery
entity, throwing all those expert staff persons to the ground.
And I only say to you that we are still struggling in the
region with no electricity, schools closed, evacuees still
evacuated, Katrina victims returning, places like East Texas
still inoperable.
Mr. Chairman, I think Homeland Security has got right now
to convene meetings and begin the assessment that I think we
can do. And I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The gentlelady yields back. And with unanimous
consent, the memo is put into the record.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
McCaul, for any questions he may have for the panelists.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a member of the Texas delegation, I would like to echo
some of the comments made by the gentlelady from Texas. I know
that at the appropriate time that this committee, our
committee, will exercise its oversight responsibilities.
As a former federal prosecutor, I have worked with BATF
personally, firsthand. I have seen the great benefit that the
canines and canine units have delivered. And I wanted to
explore a couple other areas of use, if I can.
Primarily I know they are used for explosives. There is
some research out there that canines can now be used to detect
biological and chemical weapons. As you know, this very capital
was under a threat after the 9/11 attacks from anthrax and
ricin.
Apparently that is a reality now, that canines can be
trained to detect that. My first question is does BATF have
any, or Homeland Security have any, intention to explore that
possibility and use canines for that purpose?
There is also a new age explosive called TATP that was used
in Israel, has been used by insurgents in Iraq, and I know that
detections are difficult for this type of new age explosive. If
you could comment on that in terms of where are we with using
canines to detect TATP.
And then finally, I am on a border state. I know we have
sensors for radiological items that may come across the border.
If you could also comment--and this is my last question--on the
use of canines on the border.
Chief Bohan. The peroxide explosives which you refer to are
something ATF has trained continually and certified on since
2002. Currently we are working to make that training available
to other agencies.
As we speak, we are conducting training right now in New
Jersey and the New York City area. So canines, in fact, are
successful with finding the peroxide explosives.
As far as the other substances, I would defer to Mr. Titus
on that.
Mr. Titus. Sir, we do have chemical detector dogs in the
CBP. We have had them for the last couple years. It is a very
difficult process to teach the dogs. We have developed a lesson
plan to do that.
We were very successful when taking the dogs into a
laboratory environment with the live agent doing a double blind
test on the dogs and handlers. And therefore, we were able to
prove that the dogs could detect certain trained odors that we
expect in a chemical weapon of mass destruction.
We have just obtained some new machines that we are going
to be using to take the live agent out into the work field
environment to expand our research and to make sure that what
we say they can do in a laboratory environment they can
actually do in the field environment as well.
So we do have the chemical dogs out there. We are planning
more research right now rather than expanding it, to make sure
we are on the right path.
And lastly, in regards to TATP, our detector dogs are
trained to detect triacetone triperoxide. We work very closely
with the FBI in Quantico. Because it is a highly volatile
substance, what we do is we go out to Quantico. One of the
FBI's chemists makes it for us. And then we run it out their
explosive--because of the sensitivity of the explosive.
Mr. McCaul. Could you comment on the biological agents, if
there are canines that are out there that can detect anthrax,
for instance? Would that would be of use or do you have that
capability currently?
Mr. Titus. We have explored that. We know that we are
comfortable and that we can go down that path if necessary. We
have not received that direction.
I would like to point out, though, that as I understand it,
with the first responder, they would rather know if it is a
chemical alert or a biological alert. Therefore the term
chembio is probably not appropriate. We say it would be a
single-focus detector dog.
Mr. McCaul. And I have seen the demonstration. I have seen
the canines detect inactive, inert anthrax, so I know that it
is out there.
Lastly, use on the border. Any comments on that?
Mr. Titus. We have detector dogs all along the southwest
border, I would venture to say over 350 dogs from Brownsville,
Texas, all the way up to San Diego. So we do have dogs out
there.
What our new focus is this fiscal year and the upcoming
fiscal years is predominantly--our traditional mission has
always been narcotic detection, and now we are looking at our
antiterrorism mission.
And what we are doing is training our--retraining some of
our detector dogs to detect not only narcotics but also to be
able to intercept concealed humans inside of vehicles or in
these other types of conveyances, like trains or something like
that, coming across the border.
Mr. McCaul. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pascrell, for his questions.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of
short questions, and then I would like to get into a different
matter that has not been discussed yet.
My first question is to Special Agent Bohan, and it is
this: Can the dogs that are trained in your particular program
detect unscented explosives?
Chief Bohan. Sir, again, the canine can detect what odors
are available. If, in fact, there is an explosive that has a
signature, the canines will detect it. Unscented explosives--
personally, I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Kontny, Director Kontny, to what extent
could dogs be used to close any security gaps as it relates to
the screening of air cargo?
Mr. Kontny. Sir, we have done some testing on that,
operational test and evaluation was conducted, to look at the
different configurations of cargo that we can use. Obviously,
we want to take a systematic approach on that, because there
are certain types of cargo or certain ways that cargo is
presented where the dog would be beneficial, and there are
other ways that the cargo would come through, configurations,
commodities, that technology would be more efficient.
So I think as a result of our operational tests and
evaluations, we are looking at which commodities the dogs are
doing best and how we can actively deploy them in the cargo
facilities.
Mr. Pascrell. As you know, there has been great discussions
here--I do not know how great they are, but there have been
many discussions about air cargo and what our responsibilities
will be. And I am sure we will get around to that sooner or
later.
Mr. Titus, you are training dogs to be chemical detector
dogs, you have explosive detector dogs, you have currency
detector dogs. You have concealed human, narcotic detector
dogs, and you have agriculture detector dogs.
I would like you to tell me if those agricultural detector
dogs which are trying to find vegetables and foods that are
coming into this country that have been spoiled or have
chemicals on them that we do not want to come into this
country--I want you to just very briefly describe what is
happening along those lines.
And then the second part of my question is are these dogs
being used to scent the trucks that are coming into this
country, 95 percent of which over the Mexican border are not
inspected even? I mean, I do not know what the heck are in
those trucks. You do not know it either, do you?
Mr. Titus. Sir, just so that I clarify your question, are
you referring to knowledge about the agriculture dogs as a
whole, and also the trucks that come across the border in
regards to agriculture or other contraband?
Mr. Pascrell. First agriculture, and then other contraband,
yes.
Mr. Titus. Okay, sir. We do have agriculture detector dogs,
and these dogs are trained on five basic odors. That is,
apples, mangoes, citrus, beef and pork.
Mr. Pascrell. Right.
Mr. Titus. And what these dogs are looking for--we do have
our dogs working in the airport and seaport environment, and
they are looking primarily at people bringing these prohibited
items coming across our border.
It is not just because there may be some chemical sprayed
on the fruit, but we are looking primarily at, for example, in
Florida, if you should have a mango come in Miami International
Airport, which has happened before, and these are infected with
certain pests, that could actually come into the country and
then infect the crop down in South Florida and wipe out the--
Mr. Pascrell. So your dogs are not used primarily for the
trucks that are coming across the border.
Mr. Titus. We are expanding the program this year. We are
looking at putting more agriculture detector dogs on the
southwest border, yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. How many more trucks are going to be
inspected now than before, then?
Mr. Titus. I do not have that information, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. The American people, Mr. Chairman, have a
right to know these questions. And we have asked those
questions for 3.5 years. We do not have an answer for those
questions.
Thank you for your answers, and thank you for your service.
I want to add something to what the gentlelady from Texas
talked about. Now, we are going to be taking a vote in a few
moments on the floor, as you well know, and we are going to be
taking that vote on whether or not we support the secretary of
Homeland Security from my state, Mr. Chertoff, or whether we
are going to support the further minimization of FEMA.
And we, the Homeland Security Committee, this
subcommittee--we have not discussed that, to my knowledge. Or
did I miss something? Did I miss anything? So let me say this
in conclusion, because, you know, you do not want to hear me in
a 4th of July speech.
We have had enough Hail Mary passes in the last 3 weeks,
and it is leaning to the debilitation, the further
debilitation, of FEMA. We can not accept this. I am going to
vote for the amendment from Mr. Sabo, the gentleman from
Minnesota.
But apparently this is going to be--this is going to come
down to a partisan vote. I thought that we had an obligation
and responsibility to the American people to get beyond
politics and work together.
And if Mr. Chertoff is throwing down the gauntlet today,
then he better understand what is at stake, unless we are going
to be complicit in this, Mr. Chairman. Now, I want this to be a
non-partisan thing, and I believe you do, too. And our ranking
member, I know, is committed to that.
We had no discussions on this. That is a disgrace. And then
you wonder why we asked for an independent review. These phony
hearings are a rash of scapegoats. You know, the Greeks have a
great saying. When the fish stinks, cut the head off.
We have serious problems here, and we are fooling the
American people. We are trying to fool them. The only thing is
they are a lot smarter than we are. We really are, Mr.
Chairman--very disappointed at this move. Every action I have
ever taken on this committee is bipartisan. Look at the record.
And I am not going to accept this from Chertoff, Tertoff, I
do not care, any of them. This is wrong. It is immoral. And we
are not going to accept it. So you better tell your leadership
what is going to happen. I am serious.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back. I thank him for his
questions and statements.
I would like to kind of wrap up this panel by revisiting
what I think--I am sorry. The gentleman from Florida does have
some questions.
Mr. Meek. Now, I wanted the other members to have an
opportunity to ask their questions, and I know that we are
about to go into a vote, and I know we are going to segue into
the second panel after the vote.
First of all, so I do not--I have a serious question as it
relates to coordination to the response of a natural disaster,
as it relates to the canine issue. I know that a couple of my
colleagues have brought up issues as it relates to oversight
responsibility of this committee.
This actual panel, Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, has been
postponed immediately after the Katrina incident due to the
fact that we all needed the kind of response and get our head
together on what we should do.
This is what we call regular order, where we are doing the
things that we need to do. Meanwhile, we have a natural
disaster to respond to, but we also have the responsibility of
making sure that we still conduct oversight functions of the
overall department.
I would also like to state that there are a lot of
sideshows that are going on. We are a 365-day-a-year
subcommittee that is supposed to be looking into oversight of
the department and making sure the American people are
protected.
This is a serious battle, Mr. Chairman. You know and other
members on this committee know on a bipartisan end, being a
member of both Armed Services and Homeland Security, which
should be always a non-partisan effort in protecting the
American people.
Unfortunately, there are some other things that are going
on now that is making it more partisan, and that means that it
is making us more vulnerable. I want to get back to the
question. I just wanted to make that statement.
The question as it relates to your assets--all of you have
assets out there through the United States, and in the event
like a Katrina or an event of a terrorist attack, some of you
have canine officers or, I mean, dogs working on the borders,
some of you--customs, border protection, you have--and
transportation security, you have canine and handlers working
in international airports.
Something happens, we know that the local law enforcement
agencies have partnered with the federal agencies, but they
are, quote, unquote, your assets, am I correct, or am I
incorrect?
You can give me a yes or no on that.
Mr. Kontny. Correct. Sir, all the assets, the canine
assets, within the TSA program--the dogs are actually
government-furnished equipment. They belong to the Government.
But all the handlers are actually law enforcement officers
assigned to that particular airport or that particular
community.
Mr. Meek. Okay. This leads me into my question. Terrorist
attack, natural disaster, first thought of local law
enforcement, we want to help our brother or our sister agency,
we are going to send our canines, they are needed, the
explosive detectors in an issue of a threat of terrorist attack
in a geographical area.
Is there a plan or has there been some discussion of making
sure that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable in another area
because we do not have enough canines to cover the assets that
we know that is either the number one or number two?
I am asking this question because in the case of the
natural disaster in New Orleans, we all knew through top-off
programs and exercises that New Orleans could be flooded, and
that it was not a serious priority in other parts of the
agency.
I just want to make sure in this area that either there has
been some thought or there is some level of coordination, and
we do not have to necessarily wait on someone to say well, you
really need to call them and tell them they may not want to
send half of their team because we need to be able to make sure
that we cover the Boston Airport, for instance.
Mr. Kontny. If I may, sir--and lessons learned from Katrina
and Rita--because we knew there was a heavy volume of traffic
that was going to go through Houston, we actually took in a
coordinated effort, at the request of the assistant secretary--
we actually moved assets, protection assets, from Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport into Houston to be able to move the passengers
through and be able to add that presence there--lessons
learned, again, from Katrina.
Also, as far as the mass transit, after we saw Madrid and
after we saw the attacks in London, the Department of Homeland
Security put together what is Phase One of our mass transit
system, which is a rapid deployment force using defense
resources. Again, that was Phase One, where we can look and see
what resources are available that are already there, and can we
augment those resources to be able to negate whatever that
threat is.
Mr. Meek. So what happens--let us say, for instance, in my
case, we have one of the best search and rescue teams with our
fire department there at Miami Dade County. They usually work
together with the Miami Dade Police Department, which--you have
assets down there.
Let us say, for instance, there is a team--I am just
pulling a number out of the air--of 20 dogs and 20 handler. The
director of the public safety department is saying we are
sending 12 of our canines there, even though half of that team
is ours, and also I would assume that we paid for some of the
handlers' training.
But we know that MIA is on the list of airports, the
largest international--it has the most international-
international traffic, and a lot of the 9/11 hijackers came
from the South Florida area.
Is there some sort of calling you or your agency and saying
we would like to do this? But as it relates to overall in
securing America, we want to send teams: we want to send 12. Is
that fine with you, or are these decisions just made on the
local level that are not necessarily looking at the bigger
picture of our mission?
Mr. Kontny. Speaking only, sir, for the Transportation
Security Administration, under our cooperative agreement with
our partners, the local law enforcement agencies, it is a
cooperative effort. They can not arbitrarily deploy those
resource without coordinating with our office and vice versa.
We are not going to actually take their resources without
coordinating with the airport director.
Mr. Meek. That is the answer I needed.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I know that we have a vote.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back. I would like to
close with a couple of questions.
It has been my sense leading into this hearing and in
hearing each of you talk that we have a much greater demand for
canine assets than we have canine assets to meet that demand.
Would each of you give me a yes or no whether you agree
with that statement, starting with you, Mr. Bohan?
Chief Bohan. Yes, I agree with that.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kontny?
Mr. Kontny. Yes, sir, but a caveat would include quality
and highly trained canines.
Mr. Rogers. I agree with that.
Mr. Titus?
Mr. Titus. Sir, would you ask your question again, please?
Mr. Rogers. We have a much greater demand for canine assets
than we have canine assets to meet that demand. That has been
my observation. And I am particularly interested in your
response to that after my visit to the border in New Mexico,
Texas, and Arizona.
Mr. Titus. Well, sir, I am a canine trainer, and I do not
look at the operational side of the house. But certainly, we
can get an answer back to you on what our direction's going to
be on that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, your counterparts on the border tell me
they need a lot more dogs, so that might be a good group to
talk with.
Next, I would like to ask--and this will be my final set of
questions--where do you get your dogs, and how much do you pay
for them to obtain them, and how much do you pay to train them?
Mr. Bohan?
Chief Bohan. We get our dogs from various guide dog
foundations and vendors.
Mr. Rogers. Domestically or foreign?
Chief Bohan. We get our dogs domestically. We only use
Labrador Retrievers.
Mr. Rogers. How much do you pay for them?
Chief Bohan. I believe somewhere around $2,000 for--
Attachment #2
Agency note: ATF pays approximately $2,150 per canine. We estimate
the training cost per canine to be roughly $60,000, not including
salaries.
Mr. Rogers. How much does it cost to train them?
Chief Bohan. I would not have that figure right in front of
me. I can get back to you, on the record, with that.
Mr. Rogers. If you would, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Kontny?
Mr. Kontny. Yes, sir. We take a three-prong approach into
our procurement of canines. One, partnering with the Department
of Defense to obtain assets through their services; local
vendors throughout the United States; and our breeding program
or what we call our puppy program down at Lackland Air Force
Base, which is part of a global colony. As a matter of fact,
the Customs and Border Protection has some. Auburn University
has them as well.
So by taking that approach, if one of those prongs suffers
because of access, we are able to facilitate further
development to meet our needs.
Mr. Rogers. So how much do you pay for your dogs?
Mr. Kontny. Well, it averages, sir, again, probably between
$2,500 and $3,000 per dog, and then we are looking at the costs
associated with the breeding program, as well, as that matures.
Mr. Rogers. Right. And how much is the training of that
dog?
Mr. Kontny. I will have to get back to you with the
specific figures on that, sir, because our training process
is--we actually pay for the handler, the local law enforcement
officer, that goes down there. So if we could look and dissect
the question on how much the training costs are and how much--
Mr. Rogers. If you could get that for us for the record, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Kontny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And the dogs that you receive, are any of them
obtained from foreign sources?
Mr. Kontny. In some cases, sir, when we partner with the
Department of Defense, yes.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Mr. Titus, where do you obtain yours?
Mr. Titus. Historically, sir, we have been getting our dogs
from animal shelters, SPCAs and the like. What has happened
since 9/11 is--and plus, the fact in the past we have trained
so many other law enforcement agencies, and they have picked up
on the same way that we train our dogs.
There are a great many officers out there looking at those
traditional sources for detector dogs or potential detector
dogs, and therefore what is happening is that there is a very
high supply and demand need. So we are actually buying more
dogs today than we ever have before.
We get our dogs from domestic and foreign sources. We have
some vendors that we work with. We pay approximately $4,500 for
an untrained dog. We do not have the tuition costs for our
officers because it is officers training officers.
However, we do have a per diem cost of about $10,000 to
$11,000 per officer for their per diem while they stay in Front
Royal or in the national canine facility.
Mr. Rogers. I would ask you to do the same thing the other
two witnesses have offered to do, and that is, for the record,
submit to this committee the percentage of dogs that you get
from foreign sources as opposed to domestic sources, what their
costs are to buy them, and then what the costs are to train
them.
I thank all of you. You have been very helpful to us. This
is a very important subject for our nation, I think, going
forward, particularly with the challenges that we have in our
mass transit systems, as well as other challenges. These assets
are going to be very important in our national security.
Thank you for your time.
At this time, I am going to dismiss this panel. We have
been called for a vote. We will be back at about 1 o'clock and
convene the second panel.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rogers. The Chair will now call up the second panel.
And I would like to recognize Chief Gene Wilson, Chief of
Police for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
for his statement.
STATEMENT OF RALPH WILSON
Chief Wilson. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the invitation. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority Police Department is the law enforcement agency
primarily responsible for protecting the system, its customers,
employees and physical assets.
We have police jurisdictions in the two counties that
Atlanta is located in, Fulton and DeKalb. We interact with 23
different police jurisdictions. We carry 500,000 people a day,
have a force of 296 people and 43 civilians.
Both the U.S. and the Georgia Department of Homeland
Security have identified MARTA as a critical infrastructure.
Historically, transit systems throughout the world have been
targets of terrorist attacks.
The recent attacks against transit systems in Madrid and
London illustrate the successful tactics of targeting a public
transit facility with many potential casualties and the
subsequent political and economic consequences.
The MARTA Police Department, in an attempt to deter
terrorist acts, has developed specialized response units, a
system of threat assessment, and a system of public education
and notification of potential threats. The specialized response
teams include the bomb squad, the special operations response
team, and the canine explosives unit detection team.
MARTA is a typical U.S. transit system, in that free
movement into and out of the system is by design, for the
convenience of our customers. Unfortunately, the design
handicaps the securing of the facility during times of
heightened alert. Unlike airports, each transit station can be
accessed by the public through multiple entrances.
Rather than restrict the entry method, transit systems
depend upon our security measures to deter a terrorist attack.
The explosive detection canine program is a vital tool in this
deterrence. Dogs are highly visible, flexible in their
position, and cost effective.
It is expected that a terrorist attack would be preceded by
reconnaissance of a potential target by members of a terrorist
group. If you look at the video that has come out of the London
bombing, you see the three suspects days earlier wandering
through the system.
We tell the public, we tell our officers, we tell our
employees, look for something suspicious. You look at those
videos, there is nothing suspicious. They look like anybody
else in the transit system going from Point A to Point B.
Visible security measures are intended to convince the
potential attacker that the likelihood of a successful attack
is minimal. The unpredictable and high-visibility presence of
dog teams is an important component of that strategy.
The cost of a single canine team, while significant, is
still cost effective. Detection machines, as currently
available, must be placed either at strategic stations and
entry points, or at all stations and all entry points. The cost
of installing detection equipment at every entry point in a
system is cost prohibitive.
Unlike technology detection equipment, canine teams can
change locations randomly, as threats develop, or during
special events with large crowds.
Visibility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness are some of
the reasons for the deployment of canine teams in the MARTA
system. Reliability of these teams' ability to detect
explosives is another.
During the 1996 Olympics, of course, the venue of the
Centennial Park was bombed. After that, even though we had
numerous bomb detection teams in the Atlanta area, if every
backpack, every briefcase that was left turned into the
potential to be a bomb, and these teams were stretched beyond
their capabilities--we found that what happened to us in the
transit system is that we literally almost had to close the
system down waiting for these resources to be allocated back to
transit.
What we did after the Olympics--we developed our own bomb
team and our own bomb detection dogs capabilities. That is how
in 1998 we started working with the--it was then the FAA, now
it is the TSA.
The Madrid bombings raised additional concerns about the
vulnerability of transit systems to suicide bombers and man-
transported explosives. It was felt that this tactic, having
been proven successful, would probably be used in the future.
We started doing research in-house and realized that our
bomb detection dogs would detect a stationary object. If a
person was standing still or if they had placed a briefcase
down, our dogs would react. But if you move it, if you walk by
it--if you noticed the demonstration earlier, when the--I
believe it was customs had the dog check the lady.
The lady stood still. If she had walked by the dog, the dog
would not have--he would not have reacted, because they have
been trained not to be interfered with by people's movements.
So we realized that if we were going to try to be proactive
on a suicide bomber, we had to do something more than the TSA
dogs. And that is how we became involved with the Auburn
program. We have now got a total of eight dogs, two Auburn, six
TSA.
We have now got people both in the--we have got two people
scheduled for the Auburn school. One will go in 2006. And then
we have got another one scheduled for the TSA school.
We feel that this partnership between the two types of
dogs, the TSA and the Auburn dogs, along with good training,
gives us what we feel to be a potent--or at least potentially
to be a potent deterrence against any sort of terrorism.
I notice that my time is up, so I will conclude my
statement. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer
them.
[The statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph Eugene Wilson, Jr.
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Police
Department is the law enforcement agency responsible for protection of
persons and property on transit system properties and in transit
vehicles. The transit system encompasses approximately twenty-three
political jurisdictions in two counties. The Police Department is
authorized 296 sworn and 43 civilian positions.
The U.S. and Georgia Departments of Homeland Security have
identified MARTA as a critical infrastructure component. Historically,
transit systems throughout the world have been targets of terrorist
attacks. The recent attacks against transit systems in Madrid, Spain
and London, Great Britain illustrate the successful tactic of targeting
a public transit facility with many potential casualties and the
subsequent political and economic consequences.
The MARTA Police Department, in an attempt to deter terrorist
attacks, has developed specialized response teams, a system of threat
assessment, and a system of public education and notification of
potential threats. Specialized response teams include the Bomb Squad,
the Special Operations Response Team, and the Canine Explosives
Detection Unit.
MARTA is typical of U.S. transit systems, in that free movement
into and out of the system is by design, for the convenience of
customers. Unfortunately, this design handicaps the securing of those
facilities during times of heightened alert. Unlike airports, each
transit station can be accessed by the public through multiple
entrances.
Rather than restricted entry methods, transit systems depend upon
other security measures to deter terrorist attacks. The explosive
detection canine program is a vital tool in that deterrence. Canines
are highly visible, flexible in their positioning, and cost effective.
The presence of a canine team, one uniformed police officer paired
with one dog, is highly visible to anyone entering a transit facility.
The team is mobile, with the ability to move around a large facility or
to board transit vehicles, increasing their visibility as they move.
Customers at MARTA often express their appreciation for the presence of
the teams, indicating that the public is reassured by this security
measure.
It is expected that a terrorist attack would be preceded by
reconnaissance of a potential target by members of the terrorist group.
Visible security measures are intended to convince the potential
attacker that the likelihood of a successful attack is minimal. The
unpredictable and highly visible presence of canine teams is an
important component of that strategy.
The cost of a single canine team, while significant, is cost
effective. Detection machines, as currently available, must be placed
either at strategic stations and entry points, or at all stations and
entry points. Machines are not easily moved, and a prepared terrorist
will know where the machines are on any given day. Their planning would
include entering the system that does not deploy machines at every
entry point. The cost of installing detection equipment at every entry
point in a system is cost prohibitive. Unlike technological detection
equipment, canine teams can change locations randomly, as threats
develop, or during special events with large crowds.
Visibility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness are some of the
reasons for the deployment of canine teams in the MARTA system.
Reliability of the teams? ability to detect explosives is another.
The decision was made immediately after the 1996 Olympics in
Atlanta, to form the MARTA Police Bomb Squad and Explosive Canine
Detection Unit. Research of canine programs revealed that reliability
of a canine team's ability was critical. Vendors of dogs and training
were plentiful; proven programs were not. It was decided that only two
programs, the FAA and the ATF, were of sufficient quality and could
show quantifiable reliability. MARTA chose the FAA program, and over
the years since, has become a full partner in the FAA/TSA program.
The Madrid bombings raised additional concerns about the
vulnerability of transit systems to suicide bombers and man-transported
explosives. It was felt that this tactic, having been proven
successful, would probably be used in the future. An investigation into
the ability of our dogs to detect explosives carried by moving people
revealed a deficiency in that area.
The TSA dogs were conditioned to ignore people as a distraction.
The dogs, although they sometimes showed interest in persons carrying
explosives, would not ``alert'' to them. They would search persons who
were presented to them by their handler, as in a stationary group, but
would ignore a moving crowd.
A search was made for agencies, training facilities or individuals
who had the same concerns or who were actively training dogs to search
moving persons, which we had begun to term ``personnel search dogs.''
There was only one positive response to our search; Auburn University
Canine Research Center.
The Auburn facility had embarked on a program that met the needs of
our department. Funds from an Office of Domestic Preparedness grant
were obtained for the purchase and training of two personnel search
canines. One of those dogs has been deployed at MARTA for a year, and
the second team is presently in training at Auburn.
The MARTA Police Canine Explosive Detection Unit currently consists
of eight handler/K-9 teams. Two of those teams are from the Auburn
Canine program. The other six teams are in the TSA program, and they
are currently the only public transit TSA teams in the country. The TSA
is in the process of deploying canine teams to the top 10 transit
systems in the U.S.
The MARTA Police Department, along with many police departments in
the Atlanta area, is under severe budget constraints. Subsequently,
manpower shortages affect the mission of protecting against terrorist
attack. The intensive training regimen of explosive detection canine
teams requires that officers assigned to the Unit be taken off regular
beat assignments. The result is a critical shortage of uniformed patrol
officers.
The TSA canine program includes an annual reimbursement to the
participating department of $40,000 for each team the department
fields. Although the amount does not cover all expenses associated with
a team, it does help when requesting replacement officer positions from
the governing Board. Continuing reimbursement is the most effective
means to sustain a substantial canine deterrence.
In late 2004, MARTA and Auburn University hosted representatives
from the Sussex County Police, Great Britain, Los Angeles Police
Department, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Dept. of
Homeland Security. The Sussex County and Los Angeles representatives
were canine unit supervisors and each department was in the process of
forming a personnel search canine program. The participants exchanged
training and operational information, and an ongoing network of
communication has been established. All representatives agreed that the
personnel search K-9 concept, combined with standard canine explosives
detection teams, is an effective means of addressing changing trends in
terrorist tactics.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORIARTY
Mr. Moriarty. Mr. Chairman, Representative Meek, thank you
very much. Fifteen years ago, Auburn University established the
Canine and Detection Research Institute. Its mission was and
still is to carry out research and development in canine
detection to protect both people as well as critical national
infrastructure.
We have conducted more than 15 federally funded multi-
component research projects ranging from a laboratory
assessment of canine olfaction--how well can they smell--to
odor detection signature analysis--how do they know how to do
it.
To complement the research efforts that we have been
engaged in, we have established a canine detection training
center at Fort McClellan, Alabama to transfer the lessons
learned from the research into the training programs for both
dogs, handlers, trainers and program managers.
Fort McClellan provides the ideal location and the
logistical partners for our canine program and the university
embellished this and has built a 40-run state-of-the-art kennel
and breeding facility there.
Collectively, Auburn University has now about 200 years of
canine training experience in our staff members, and we have
invested $5 million to bring the program to where it is. Three
of our staff, as an example, more than any other entity, were
chosen to serve on the recently established 55-member
scientific working group for dogs and orthogonal detectors.
Historically, canine detection has been practiced more at a
craft level than a science. The purpose in our focusing on
teaching handlers some basic behavioral principles and the
associated technical language is to move the canine detection
in the direction of a science.
Handlers who are equipped with a basic understanding of
behavioral principles and consistent technical knowledge are
better armed to maintain the performance of their dog and
meaningfully collaborate with their colleagues and instructors
to improve the performance of their dogs.
Our explosive detection course requires 10 weeks. The drug
detection course requires 6 weeks. Both include extensive
training in operational environments and they conclude with a
realistic scenario-based evaluation and videotape certification
of each team's operational qualifications.
The varied experiences of our skilled staff and the
associated research that we conduct allow our program to
rapidly develop new applications for bringing canines to bear
on problems of national needs.
For example, our canine program conducted research and
developed training procedures in support of the Department of
Energy in fielding the first-ever operational chemical warfare
agent detector dog teams.
Our current efforts in prototyping focus on applications of
immediate relevance to homeland security and force protection,
and one of these, as the chief has just mentioned, is person
screening for explosive material, particularly in a mass
transit theater.
Other applications involve remote and relatively autonomous
detector dog operations. For example, remote screening of
vehicles with the occupants by the dogs, with the handler being
hundreds of yards away and in a safe environment provides a
much safer environment for the handler to operate at particular
checkpoints.
We are also developing remote position locating and command
issuing equipment with which to equip dogs for remote
autonomous applications including border protection. The dog
can also serve as a remotely guided platform for other
sensors--radiological, chemical, biological, cameras, listening
devices and so forth.
Our program, having no operational mandate of its own, and
having an experienced instructional staff and R&D capabilities,
provides a resources for specialized mission curriculum
development and novel applications of canines. We are unique,
and to that end, a sample of our customers includes the Coast
Guard, MARTA, Federal Protective Service and many others.
An example of some of our graduates--we have had two Coast
Guard teams from Seattle using our dogs who have assisted the
ATF and local law enforcement in recovering bomb-making
materials on two separate occasions that were not able to be
located by the agents using physical means.
Auburn and the TSA are only two satellites of the highly
successful Australian customs dog breeding program, and we are
the only non-federal program. That gives us opportunities to
breed detector dogs at Auburn University.
Nationally, the attention to enhancing canine detection
resources and capabilities has been, in my opinion,
disproportionately low given the immediate potential to support
homeland security, particularly in relationship to the
attention and funding allotted to the development of static
electronic detection devices. We need both, I would argue.
We have the institutional capacity to ramp up our personnel
and facilities at McClelland if the external support is
available.
In conclusion, despite the significant advances in
electronic sensors--and there has been significant advances--
the use of dogs is still widely regarded as the most capable
tool for the interdiction of hazardous materials such as
explosives.
Dogs can interrogate articles in large areas with rapidity
unmatched by any other means of detection. And dogs can detect
concentrations of an odor as low as one part in 100 trillion.
Now, aside from the national debt, 100 trillion is a number
that we typically think of. But put it in terms--that is like
detecting an ounce if you dilute it in 800 billion gallons.
Dogs are good.
A well trained detector dogs handling team is a vital
weapon for safeguarding the nation against terrorism. But
again, as I posed, I think canine detection is underutilized
because of the limited number of top quality training programs,
a limited supply of high quality dogs, and sparse funding of
the detection research and development that must underlie the
this technique.
Auburn's canine detection program is uniquely capable and
positioned to provide an asset responsive to these needs. I
thank you for your attention.
[The statement of Mr. Moriarty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. C. Michael Moriarty
Auburn University's Canine and Detection Research Institute (CDRI)
mission is to conduct research, development, and training activities to
enhance canine and other substance detection technologies. These
activities focus on the detection of hazardous materials to protect
people and critical national infrastructure. Auburn has provided basic
research, technological development, and education to the detector dog
community for the last 15 years.
Auburn has conducted more than 15 federally funded multi-component
research projects ranging from behavioral laboratory assessment of
canine olfactory sensitivity and odor detection signature analysis to a
year-long applied examination of the effective working duty-cycle of
detector dogs under different environmental conditions. The performance
of prototype detection instrumentation has been examined using the
Institutes behavioral laboratory preparation for studying olfaction,
which is the only time the performance of such devices has been
examined in a manner allowing direct comparison to the olfactory
sensitivity of a dog. Auburn is the U. S. Government's primary source
of research related to canine detection and information from this
research established the scientific precedent supporting the use of
detector dogs for the detection of explosive and other hazardous
materials. Furthermore, the Institute is a primary source of
information and problem solving for the detector dog community
responding to 100 or more e-mail, phone, and mail request for
information or guidance regarding the use of detector dogs each year.
Auburn established the Canine Detection Training Center at Ft.
McClellan, AL to further the technology transfer and training
components of the Institute's mission. The Center trains dogs,
handlers, trainers, and program managers in the performance of all
facets of canine detection work. A unique aspect of the Center is that
it provides an operational context in which applied research is
conducted and, in turn, results from that research are incorporated
into training programs forming a continuous loop of quality and
capability enhancement. Instruction at the center blends the
craftsmanship of expert canine training professionals, behavioral and
veterinary sciences, and the most recent technological advances.
Auburn and the Transportation Security Administration, Explosive
Detection Dog program, are the only two U.S. satellites of the highly
successful Australian Customs Service Detector Dog Breeding Program and
Auburn is the only non-federal government and academic veterinary
science satellite of this program. This program selectively breeds dogs
to be successful at detection work to enhance the quality of detector
dogs and ensure a resource for such dogs amidst increased demand and
ever more consolidated sources for working dogs, which is typically
north-western Europe. Auburn has produced 21 litters of Labrador
Retriever Puppies from which more than 50 successfully trained detector
dogs have been paired with law enforcement handlers. This program is
made possible through the support dozens of volunteers to house, care
for, and provide these puppies with particular experiences to enhance
their trainability. Recent collaborations with correctional
institutions to employ low-risk inmates for raising of puppies make
this program capable of very rapid expansion should demand warrant. The
Labrador Retriever breed makes for an excellent detector dog, is
adaptable to many applications, and is generally perceived as non-
threatening by the public. The center also has established
relationships with domestic and international vendors of the highest
quality working dogs to fulfill the mission specific needs of any
canine detection scenario.
Auburn's program is the only detector dog and handler training with
the combination of direct support from a college of veterinary
medicine, behavioral science--based research and development activity
and academic instructional design. The Auburn Canine Program is a
unique, full service, state the art provider of canine detection
research, development, training, and technology transfer. Program staff
and resources provide the capabilities, technical expertise, and
experience to address a myriad of canine detection challenges. Our
guiding principals are a commitment to scientific understanding,
quality, and responsiveness to the needs of practitioners.
Ft. McClellan provides ideal infrastructure, location, and
logistical partners for the mission of Auburn's Canine Program. Auburn
has a 99-year lease of several buildings and over 250 acres of land on
the recently closed Army post. Include are the previous post veterinary
clinic and a relatively new 24,000 square foot instructional building.
Additionally, the University has constructed a 40-run kennel/breeding
complex. McClellan contains several firing ranges, a driving course,
airstrip, warehouses, multi-use buildings, and extensive personnel
housing capacity typical of a large military training facility. Ample
infrastructure is available to ramp-up to any conceivable level of
training operations. Located between Atlanta and Birmingham and within
15 minutes of Interstate 20, McClellan is readily accessible. A
collaborative atmosphere exists among the AU Canine Program, the ODP--
Center for Domestic Preparedness and the FEMA--Noble Training Hospital
in executing their respective Homeland Security Support missions making
McClellan an ideal integrated hub for homeland defense/emergency
preparedness training and technology development.
Paul Waggoner is the overall director of the Auburn Canine Research
and Training Programs. Paul has a doctoral degree in behavioral science
and 15-years of experience in conducting research and development
related to canine olfaction, detector dog training, handler
instruction, and operational deployment of detector dogs. Thomas (Ed)
Hawkinson is director of Training Activities. Ed's experience includes
managing the U.S. Secret Service Canine Program, Military Working Dog
Program Operations Branch Chief and Senior Canine Instructor, and tours
of duty as a Military Police Canine Handler and Kennel Master in Korea
and Vietnam. John Pearce is the deputy director of training activities.
John's previous position was with the Military Working Dog Training
Center assigned as branch chief for the TSA Canine Training Program.
These two individuals have a myriad of experiences in training dogs,
handlers, trainers, and supervisors as well as in employing canine
detection for both military and law enforcement applications. Hawkinson
and Pearce have recruited an eclectic ensemble of canine training /
handler instructional staff with varied law enforcement, federal
agency, and private investigation backgrounds. For example, staff
member Jeanne Brock holds two masters degrees, is a certified
veterinary technician, was proprietor of a canine training and canine
arson / cadaver private investigation firm and is currently the
President of the Canine Arson Detection Association. Auburn has over
200 person-years of experience in canine detection.
Auburn has attracted instructors that are leaders in the field of
canine detection who share the vision of applying behavioral science
and canine training craftsmanship to enhance the practice of canine
detection. Auburn's canine training methods are based on the well-
established principles of animal learning from academic behavioral
science. Handlers are required to demonstrate mastery of over 80-hours
of classroom instruction in our standard explosive and drug detection
courses. The classroom instruction is comprehensive providing handlers
with information ranging from health and sanitation of kennels to
operational tactics; however, instruction in basic behavioral
principles and the use of the correct behavioral terminology in the
course is uniquely intensive. To date, canine detection has been
practiced at more of a craft level than a technology. The purpose in
our focusing on teaching handlers basic behavioral principles and its
associated technical language is to move canine detection in the
direction of a technology. Handlers equipped with a basic understanding
of behavioral principles and consistent technical language are better
armed to maintain the performance of their dog and communicate
meaningfully with their colleagues and instructors in diagnosing and
correcting performance problems. Our explosive detection course is 10-
weeks long and our drug detection course is 6-weeks long. Both include
extensive training in operational environments and conclude with
realistic scenario based evaluations and video--taped certification of
operational competence.
Auburn welcomes and supports the establishment of national best
practice guidelines for training, evaluation, certification, and
operational practices in canine detection. Best practice guidelines are
critically needed to reduce the extreme variability in the quality with
which canine detection is practiced. Such guidelines will also provide
a common set of technical and operational terms to aid communication
across practitioners. Perhaps the most immediate importance of such
guidelines is to make it possible for the Department of Homeland
Security to identify and maintain a database of canine detection teams
and their specific operational capabilities for effective utilization
of local, regional, and federal canine detection resources in response
to terrorist threat situations and critical incidents. Such guidelines
must accommodate the diverse operational missions of different
agencies. Therefore, we prefer the concept of guidelines, which may
provide the basis for ``standards'' promulgated by a specific segment
of the responder community or certification of an agency of the Federal
Government to conduct particular tasks, as opposed to overarching
``national standards or certifications'' to which all applications
under all circumstances must comply. Auburn has encouraged the
development of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal
Detectors (SWG DOG), which had its first meeting this month. This
scientific working group (SWG) follows in the tradition of other
successful working groups sponsored by the Department of Justice, such
as the ``SWG on DNA Evidence'' and ``SWG on Finger Printing'' as well
as the ``Bomb Squad Commander's EOD Technician Training Guidelines''.
Auburn was honored to have 3 members (more than any other agency or
institution) chosen to serve on the 55 member SWG DOG committee: Paul
Waggoner (Unification of Terms and Research & Technology sub-
committees); Robert Gillette (Breeding and Dog Care & Physical
Conditioning) and; John Pearce (SWG Executive Committee Member, Chair
of the Handler Selection & Training sub-committee, and Certification
Procedures sub-committee).
Instruction of handlers at the Training Center is also enhanced by
affiliated subject matter experts at the University. For example,
instruction regarding canine health, fitness, feeding, housing, and
first aid is under the guidance of Robert Gillette, Professor of
Veterinary Medicine and Director of the Sports Medicine Center within
Auburn University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Gillette also
serves as the primary veterinary consultant to the Center's detector
dog breeding activities. Auburn's program is also unique in that its
operational training program is monitored internally by an
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and externally by the U. S.
Department of Agricultural as mandated for University's by the Animal
Welfare Act. Our R&D, training, and breeding activities the approval of
and our housing and veterinary care of dogs is overseen by the Auburn
University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and is monitored
for compliance with the Animal Welfare Act by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The varied experiences of Auburn's Canine Program staff and R&D
support allow the Auburn program to rapidly develop new applications
for canine detection. For example, the AU Canine program conducted
research, developed training procedures, and supported the Department
of Energy in fielding the first ever operational chemical warfare agent
detector dog teams. Our current development and prototyping efforts
focus on applications of immediate relevance to homeland security and
force protection. One of these is person-screening for explosive
material particularly in the mass transit theater. The appropriately
prepared dog and handler team can effectively screen large numbers of
persons and their carried items entering or exiting a mass transit
theatre with little to no retarding of the flow of transit users, which
is a significant concern regarding instrumental detection devices.
Additionally, extensive observation of an Auburn trained operational
detector dog person-screening team in the Metro Atlanta Transit system
across the last 6-months suggests that very few people consider
screening activities by a Labrador Retriever handled by a uniformed
Transit Authority officer to be threatening or intrusive. Other
applications being prototyped involve several remote and relatively
autonomous detector dog operations. For example, remote screening of
vehicles and their occupants by dogs with the handler or operator being
hundreds of yards in distance from the vehicle provides a safer stand-
off distance for officers in the case vehicle check points. We are also
collaborating with AU Engineering in developing inertia enhanced global
positioning systems and remote command issuing / reporting equipment
with which to equip dogs for non line-of-sight applications such as
building searches, search and rescue, long-range autonomous tracking of
persons and surveillance for intruders along perimeters of critical
infrastructure and for border protection. In such remote and autonomous
applications, the dog can also serve as a highly mobile and adaptively
directed platform for sensors, cameras, and listening devices. Auburns
canine program's ability to engineer the behavior of dogs for such
applications has the potential to provide for many innovative
applications for dogs that support homeland security and force
protection.
In addition to serving as a conduit for technology transfer to the
detector dog user community and a vehicle for infusing established
behavioral science into the craft of detector dog training and use,
part of the vision of the Training Center was to provide a needed
resource for high-level detector dog team (i.e., dog and handler)
instruction to state, local, and private law enforcement/security
agencies as well as federal agencies that did not have inherent
training programs. Furthermore, as a program with no operational
mandate, an eclectic instructional staff, and R&D capabilities, to
provide a resource for specialized mission curriculum development and
novel applications of canine detection. To that end, our customers to
date have included the following:
U.S. Department of Energy and Wackenhut Services: Chemical warfare
agent R&D, proof of concept canine training and testing, handler
instruction, and operational deployment support
U. S. Customs Service: Technical support of prototype chemical
agent detection training program on--site at McClellan.
U.S. Coast Guard Office of Law Enforcement: Designed maritime
operations curriculum and training program, trained first 10 new USCG
service-wide unified canine program detector dog teams, assisted in
development of USCG Policy and Procedures for detector dog program and
performed after-deployment evaluation and program guidance.
U. S. Secret Service Technical Services Division: Trained prototype
explosive detection person-screening dog and conducted test and
demonstration of person-screening capability
Metro Atlanta Transit Authority: Developed curriculum and training
procedures specifically for screening persons and their hand-carried
items for explosive material in a mass transit theatre of operation.
Have trained 2 person-screening detection teams for MARTS and
anticipate the training of 2 additional teams
Federal Protective Service, DHS: Developed specialized curriculum
and training program. Over 50 Federal Protective Service detector dog
teams have been trained to date. Re-evaluation and re-certification of
nearly half of those teams has also occurred.
Australian Customs Service: Trained two chemical warfare agent
teams and consulted in development of Australian Customs Service
firearms detection training program.
Customs Service of the Territory of the Mariana Islands: Trained
their first and only 4 explosive detector dog teams
Local Law Enforcement: Trained several local law enforcement
explosive and drug detector dog teams. In all but one case, this
training and dogs has been done for free or significantly subsidized by
Auburn University
Private Security Firms: Have provided trained dogs and other
services to two of the Nations preeminent private detector dog
services: Explosive Countermeasures Inc., which has several Government
(e.g. IRS, Holocaust Museum) and DOD (e.g., Pentagon Perimeter
Security) contracts: Wackenhut Services DOE Security Operations and K-9
Search on Site, both of which provide detector dog services for DOE
National Laboratory Sites (e.g., Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Sandia, Los
Alamos).
Several of our graduate detector dog teams have excelled in their
operational missions. For example, two AU trained USCG teams from
Seattle have assisted the ATF and local law enforcement in recovery of
bombing making materials on two separate occasions by finding materials
not able to located by physical searches. All of the 7 local area law
enforcement drug detection teams we have trained have had multiple
significant finds of illegal drugs. One of our FPS trained teams
interdicted prohibited propellant (concrete nail gun ammunition--
smokeless powder) material in the trunk of a vehicle during routine
vehicle screening at the entrance to a Government building parking
garage in D.C.
Despite these success and advances, maintaining both R&D and
Training Center capabilities have been a challenge for Auburn
University financially due to insufficient volume and consistency of
R&D and training service income. Auburn has endeavored to provide a
critically needed resource for enhancing canine detection to support
homeland security. Attention to enhancing canine detection resources,
capabilities and innovative uses of canine detection has been
disproportionately low given its immediate potential to support
homeland security particularly in relation to the to the extensive
attention and associated funding allotted to the development and
fielding of instrumental detection devices. In particular, state and
local law enforcement are unable to afford services at the level
offered by Auburn or most other credible training services, thus canine
detection, the most readily available tool for their use in detection,
is relegated to lowest bidder; and subsequent to 9/11 the number of
such low bidders expanded significantly. The cost of training a
standard explosive detection team (including provision of a dog) at
Auburn is currently $13,800 not including lodging and per-diem for the
trainee. Some of our Government contracts require certain guarantees on
dog health and performance, as well as additional elements of training
that increase our typical costs for Federal customers to over $14,000.
Drug detection team training cost $12,800. This price schedule reflects
Auburn's actual cost for performing this work including all the
overhead, maintenance at McClellan and administration. In order to
impact the practice of canine detection at the level of state and local
law enforcement, Auburn has subsidized detection team training for
state and local law enforcement by 10%; 20% for law enforcement
agencies in Alabama.
We offer high quality training at a relatively low price because of
Auburn's requisite non-profit business model as a State, Land-Grant
University. In comparing these prices to quotes of training costs at
Federal Agencies, it is important to consider whether agency quotes
truly reflect the extant overhead expenses required to conduct their
canine program including administrative costs. It is our opinion that
any equal comparison will necessarily support our contention that our
prices are very modest for the level of training and quality of
facilities provided.
Auburn currently can train about 36-detection teams per year. Owing
to nearly 100% retention of previous customers for re-evaluation, re-
certification, canine program manager seminar attendees, and additional
canine team training, we are nearing maximum utilization of this
capacity, thus reducing our present ability to take on new customers
for our service. Auburn University has invested on the order of $5
Million of non-federal funds to provide for personnel support and
infrastructure development to reach this current capacity. However,
Auburn has the institutional capacity to rapidly ramp up personnel and
facility resources at McClellan to accommodate at least double that
capacity within 6-months or less given external support.
Despite significant advances in electronic sensors, the use of
detection dogs is widely regarded as the most capable tool for the
interdiction of hazardous materials such as explosives (1993, Office of
Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress). Dogs are known to be capable of
detecting concentrations of an odor at least as low as 1-part per 100
trillion parts of clean air, which exceeds the capability of most
operational chemical detection devices. Moreover, canines possess
amazing olfactory acuity, are capable of operating in ``odor-noisy''
environments (i.e., capabilities are not easily perturbed by extraneous
odors), and provide for interrogation of articles and large areas with
rapidity unmatched by any other method of detection. Thus, well-trained
detector dog and handler teams are vital for safeguarding the Nation
against terrorism. However, canine detection is underutilized because
of a limited number of competent training programs, a limited supply of
high-quality dogs, and sparse funding of canine detection research and
development. Auburn University's Canine Detection Program is uniquely
capable and positioned to provide an asset responsive to all of these
needs.
Mr. Rogers. The chair recognizes Ms. Terri Recknor,
President of Garrison and Sloan Canine Detection Company, for
her statement.
Ms. Recknor?
STATEMENT OF TERRI RECKNOR
Ms. Recknor. Thank you very much for affording me this
opportunity to speak in front of you all.
As you know, we have all been talking about canines,
whether it is the federal training programs by Auburn, and if
there is two things I can stress before I start my speech--is
one, we need a standardization in the private industry. The
federal agencies have not come together to standardize their
programs, and that is first and foremost before they can help
us.
But we really need a standardization in the private
industry. And the reason we need this is my second point. We
can partner with the federal agencies. We have been wanting to
partner with the federal agencies. Every 2 years there is an
international canine explosive meeting.
Last year, it was held in New Orleans, and it was brought
up to TSA and the other federal agencies that if there was a
standardization in the private industry and there was some type
of a terrorism incident and they had identified private
companies that would meet or exceed their standards, they could
call upon these private companies.
And we at Garrison and Sloan have been working for a number
of years to try and get a standardization because we really
need it in this industry. So if I can stress anything, it is
standardization and partnership.
Unfortunately, my partner, Tony Guzman, is the trainer in
this organization, and he was unavailable today, so hopefully I
will be able to answer your questions.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there has never been
such a great need for canines ever before. It is unprecedented.
And what we saw was after 9/11 that companies were begun and
implemented overnight.
Now, prior to 9/11, you saw mostly narcotics detection out
there, because there was no need for explosive detection. So to
fully train and certify an explosive canine team does not
happen overnight.
Let me emphasize at this point that, again, there is no
national standardization. There is no national certification
for private companies. When we state at Garrison and Sloan that
we are a licensed company, what we mean is that we have an ATF
license. We have a bunker at our training facility that houses
explosives. We have been certified by the ATF.
We also have a safe at our premises that has drugs that
allows us to be certified by the DEA. We also have every state
and local license that we need to operate.
And it is interesting that my partner, Tony Guzman, is able
to train the local agencies, various police departments, the
state canines, but yet we are not permitted to work with them.
So it is okay that we train them, we just can not work
alongside of them, which I really do not understand.
Another thing that we do that makes us unique in our
industry, in the private industry, is that our dogs are all
certified by the Florida International University. The reason
this is so important is because there is no money to gain here
on either side.
A lot of the private companies train their own dogs. They
use pseudo-explosives, which are dummy explosives, and they
certify their own dogs. They do this because they could never
pass a national certification.
Florida International University has this program, and they
have nothing to gain by it. We do not pay for it. If the dog
fails, the dog fails. If the dog passes, he passes because he
should pass. So I think that is important to note.
And again, getting back to the formation of these companies
after 9/11, many of them were formed overnight. And I can tell
you, being in Miami, Florida, there was a huge need for dogs.
We are the cruise capital of the world. And it was interesting
to see how many companies just appeared after 9/11.
And you have seen how hard the dogs here work no matter
what agency they work for. You have heard Auburn talk about how
long their training program is. You can not manufacture these
dogs. You can not train them overnight, which, in essence,
means you can not staff overnight and you can not help local
companies, local governments or to protect the nation.
With us, our dogs go through a rigorous training. And I
think it is interesting to note, too, when we talk about where
everybody gets their dogs from, all of our dogs are European-
bred. And you may ask yourself why Europe. The interesting
thing about Europe is over there it is a sport.
And also, it is expensive to buy these dogs. We do not have
any domestic dogs. We do not go to the pound. We do not go to
any private breeding source. We have looked at that, but the
need has been so great that we go to Europe.
My partner has been going to Europe for over 20 years. Six
to eight times a year he goes to Europe. He has been dealing
with the same top breeders in Europe, and they know him. They
call and they say we are ready, we have dogs to look at. Tony
just went to Europe I think 6 weeks ago and only brought back
eight dogs, because the demand is so high.
But the interesting thing is when he tests the dogs in
Europe, we already know that they are good dogs. Our fail ratio
once they dogs come back to Miami is less than 1 percent. And I
am sure if you would ask that same question of all these
federal agencies, they do not have that type of a number.
Again, we pay for our dogs. And you had asked how much the
dogs cost. Depends on where the euro is. I mean, we are at the
mercy of the euro. Before 9/11, Tony could go to Europe and buy
a dog for $1,000, $1,500. Now you are looking at $4,000,
$5,000, $6,000 for a dog.
And then you have to bring the dog back, and then you train
the dog. We are fortunate in the fact that it is our company,
so we can train at a higher ratio. We have dogs dispatched all
over the country, and the different thing about our company,
why we are trying to set such a high standard, is we do not
employ civilians.
Like other companies out there, rogue companies--and we can
touch on the Russ Ebersols of the world--they will employ
anybody that has a dog and say it is an explosive dog. Is it?
No.
I have been in the trenches since 9/11. I know every
competitor I have, and I can tell you without a doubt we are
the only company that has such a high standard that if you see
our dogs work in Newark, New Jersey, New Orleans, L.A., all
these dogs are not only trained on explosives but they are
maintained on explosives.
The people that work for us are off-duty canine officers,
and we meet with the individual police departments and we get
their chief's approval that we will give them our dog, and they
will work for us, but they will also maintain our dogs with
their explosives. Nobody else does this.
What they will do is they may perhaps train a dog and then
send it off to whatever, and use pseudos, or maybe nothing at
all. And yet they expect these dogs to find explosives. I can
not stress enough they can not find explosives.
So one of the things that I know is kind of an underlying
current here is are we keeping the public safe, are we doing
what is right. I can only tell you no, we are not. They are
trying. The federal agencies are trying, but they are--just
like we heard today about what is going on with FEMA and
everything, this is the first time in 4 years that we have sat
like this.
I have gone to every meeting where they will let me speak,
and I tell the people if you are interested in employing a
canine company, go to their facility. Chances are they do not
have a facility. Everything on their web site is bogus.
We contacted ATF. We contacted DEA. Because if you go on a
Web search, you will find all of these home pages that have the
DEA license and the ATF license. It is bogus. They put it
there, and people assume that if it is there, they must be
licensed. Maybe what they have done--what we have seen with a
lot of companies--is a company, say, in Houston will say that
it is ATF-licensed. Well, it is. It has paid some company in
Chicago to use their license.
So, really, how do they maintain these dogs? Perhaps they
have trained the dogs in Chicago, shipped them off to Houston.
They are not maintained. And as my partner would say if he was
here, these dogs could not find a fat man in a phone booth. Not
possible.
We need standards, and we need to work with the federal
government to do this. And I commend all of you for doing this.
Auburn has a great program. And I commend them for trying to
breed these dogs. We do not have the time with our company to
breed dogs. We would rather pay top dollar, have a dog that
works unbelievably long hours.
And something that is different about our teams than the
federal teams is that when we work at the seaports--and
Congressman Meek, I met you last year when we were at the Port
of Miami. We work exclusively with Royal Caribbean and
Norwegian Cruise Lines all over the country and basically all
over the world.
And the thing that is different about our teams at the
port--we have one handler and two canines. What this allows us
to do is we alternate canines. We put pallets down. There could
be 20 pallets, could be 10 pallets, whatever we do. One dog
searches and then it rests. While that is resting, the second
dog searches, so there is no down time.
An average day at the port for us is anywhere from 250
pallets to 400 pallets. We do not slow down commerce. We do not
do anything. We are actually the quickest way you can screen
cargo. It is proven. They have tried the machines, swabbing,
going over testing. You have got to calibrate those machines.
The dogs work because they love to work. They are not
calibrating anything. They do not take sick days. They do not
take lunch breaks. We train on the toy method, which is that
little hose you saw. They either get the hose or the Kong, that
little red toy. All they want to do is find that toy. The do
not want to eat. They do not want to play with a towel. They
just want the toy.
So what we do when we work at the ports--and I think
Congressman Meek saw this--is we plant hide, and what that
means is we cut a little hole in the plastic on one of the
pallets and we place smokeless powder, and we walk the dog
around, and we let him find that hide. Then he gets his toy,
and he is happy and he is ready to work.
Machines do not do that. Machines break down. Machines are
costly. Our dogs work because they love it, and they love it
because they have been bred to love it and because it is a
sport in Europe.
We also have been fortunate enough to work with FedEx at
some of the airports. FedEx primarily mandated dogs for the
narcotic industry. But when you think about feed, if FedEx has
one plane leaving early or leaving late, it costs them millions
of dollars.
So I just would like to stress to you that if we are good
enough to work for the cruise lines in all the major seaports,
and we are good enough to work for a major air cargo company,
then I think it is time to look at the private industry for
supporting the federal agencies.
At our kennel we have many dogs. We have actually ramped up
for these dogs. So we can help. And if I can stress anything,
we really need to partner. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Recknor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terri Recknor
My name is Terri Recknor. I am the President of Garrison & Sloan,
Inc., a Canine Detection Company based in Miami, Florida. My partner
Tony Guzman was scheduled to appear before you today is unfortunately
dealing with a number of family issues and cannot be here. My partner
is also the President of Metro-Dade K-9 a canine facility specializing
in the training of canines and handlers for state and local law
enforcement. Mr. Guzman has been training and working with canines for
over 24 years.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been
an unprecedented need for explosive detection canines, both in law
enforcement and the private sector. Prior to 9-11, there were very few
private canine detection companies. The majority of those companies
worked exclusively in narcotics detection. Garrison & Sloan is unique
in that it was one of the few canine detection companies that had an
extensive inventory of fully trained and certified explosive canine
teams.
Let me emphasize that, at this point, there is no national standard
for the licensing and certification of private industry explosive
detection companies. When we state that our company is licensed and
certified, it means the following. We posses a Federal Department of
Justice, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) license for explosives,
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license for narcotics and all
state and local licenses to train and certify our explosive and
narcotic canines. Our canines are independently certified by Florida
International University. In addition, to my knowledge we are the only
privately-owned company in the United States to have it's explosive
canines certified by the Department of Defense.
Immediately following 9-11 the need was so great for explosive
detection canines that private detection canine companies were formed
overnight. Many of these companies that were formed overnight claimed
to have fully trained canines. It should be noted for the record that
the average time it takes Garrison & Sloan to purchase a canine, train
and certify an explosive detection canine is usually a minimum of 5
months. The fact of the matter is a newly formed canine detection
company that is properly licensed and certified cannot be fully
operational for months.
I would be the first to admit that because of the lack of a
national standard, our industry has been seriously tainted by a number
of fraudulent companies. Within the last two years, a private company
in Virginia working for the Federal Government was indicted and found
guilty for fraudulent canine services. Their canines were tested with
explosives and did not alert. The owner was convicted and is currently
serving time in a federal prison.
It should also be noted that as a general rule most Federal State
and Local Governmental agencies will not contract with private industry
canine companies. Once again, it is my opinion that the reason for this
is the lack of a national standard and the potential liability that
would be attached by the governmental agency if the dogs should fail.
Today it is my understanding that TSA, Customs and Border
Protection Bureau, and the ATF collectively have no more than 1,700
trained canine teams in the United States. The majority of the TSA
teams are located at the major metropolitan airports while the CBP
teams are located along the U.S. borders. If one were to do the math,
the number of federally trained canine teams would amount to
approximately 35 per state. Given the most recent events of the train
bombings in Madrid, Spain and London, England, I do not believe that
this amount of dogs is anywhere near sufficient to protect our
airports, seaports, subway systems, train station's and our national
treasures.
In order to make an argument as to why governmental agencies should
use properly licensed and certified private canine companies I would
like to tell you how we obtain, train and certify our canines. My
partner Tony Guzman travels to Europe 6--8 times per year to purchase
canines. He deals with well-established breeders throughout Europe. Why
Europe? Europe is known for breeding the finest working dogs in the
world. Once a dog is chosen by our company he must go through a
rigorous 12-week training course. Our canines are trained on real
explosives and real narcotics, which we obtain legally. ATF has very
strict policies that must be adhered to before granting a license. Upon
completion of training our canines must be certified. Our certification
process is conducted by an independent entity--The Florida
International University. After training and certification our canines
must be tested weekly with explosives and narcotics to keep their level
of proficiency at maximum performance. You should also be aware that it
is our opinion for efficiency and effectiveness purposes that canines
should not be dual trained. By that I mean our explosive canines are
only trained on explosives and our narcotic canines are only trained on
narcotics, we do not cross-train.
Unfortunately, what I described to you is not the norm in our
industry, it is the exception. The actual norm in our industry is that
XYZ Company either purchases a dog from wherever it can find one or it
goes to the local pound. Most Customs and Border Patrol dogs, for your
information come from animal shelters, humane societies and rescue
operations as reported in the Government Executive magazine dated
September 1, 2005. Since most private industry companies cannot afford
or legally possess an ATF license, they purchase pseudo (substitute)
explosives. The canine is then trained on pseudo explosives and the
trainer allegedly certifies the dog himself. These dogs cannot go
through an independent legitimate certification process because they
would fail.
Another scenario that we see in our industry is that canine Company
A pays an ATF certified canine Company B to utilize their ATF
certification. Company A is located in North Carolina but uses Company
B's license which is located in California.
In the past four years we have seen every type of rogue canine
company imaginable. Quite possibly, a national standard is still years
away but there are steps that can be taken now to ensure the integrity
of private industry canine detection companies. These steps include
greater oversight by ATF and DEA in the licensing and certification of
private canine detection facilities. A quick look on the Internet and
you will find all types of canine companies that market their services.
You will also see that these companies represent that they posses an
ATF or DEA license. When a prospective client researches these
companies they ``assume'' what is printed on the website is fact.
However, for the most part, it is fiction.
While the Federal government today, principally TSA and CBP do not
use private industry canines, I would respectively request, given the
shortage of canine teams throughout the United States, that private
industry canine teams who could meet or surpass the standards set by
these government entities be permitted to be hired by the federal
government. Should our canines fail to meet the same standards as that
of the government then we should be released from the contract.
However, it is my earnest belief that our private canine teams could
meet and exceed the standards set by the federal government.
In addition to the above I would like to advise you that after 9-11
the cruise line industry was the first to step up and hire private
canine companies. Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Lines were at
the forefront in their industry. They set the standard of insuring that
all goods loaded on board their ships were screened by explosive
detection canines. Last year, this committee, which was chaired by
Congressman Cox, watched our company demonstrate the screening process
for Royal Caribbean at the Port of Miami. This Committee observed how
quickly a dog could screen a row of pallets to insure that no
explosives were present. At that demonstration Congressman Cox asked me
why dogs were not being utilized at airports. My answer then remains
the same as it is today, and that is ``private canine companies are not
permitted by TSA to screen cargo at the airports.''
All too often we watch on the nightly news how airline cargo is not
screened and how our subways and train stations are not appropriately
searched by explosive canine teams. The general consensious is that it
would be too expensive and time-consuming to search all the cargo being
loaded onto a plane and or packages and individuals boarding subways
and trains. Perhaps this is true with electronic searching devices.
However, canines could facilitate this screening process in a fraction
of the time and for a fraction of the cost compared to utilizing
mechanical testing equipment.
You should also be aware that in addition to screening for the
cruise lines, we are fortunate to work exclusively for Federal Express.
Like Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Lines, FedEx is a leader in
their industry. Shortly after 9-11 FedEx hired us at numerous airports
around the country to screen packages being loaded on their aircraft.
They chose explosive canines for their thoroughness, accuracy and
speed. As you know FedEx is all about speed but they have not forgotten
about security.
Screening air cargo by private canine detection companies could be
managed the same way that cruise line cargo and FedEx packages are
screened.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. While
our industry needs national standards and increased oversight of those
standards, we welcome the opportunity to work along side and with our
federal state and local government counterparts to ensure the safety
and security of our nation. I do not believe at the present time that
the level of qualified and certified detection teams at the federal
state and local level are sufficient to protect the facilities that
need to be screened. I would be pleased to answer any questions that
the committee has and once again I thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
And I would like to start off with a few questions.
Chief Wilson, I am curious. You said that you use dogs from
TSA and Auburn. How did you choose those two sources?
Chief Wilson. When we started first, Mr. Chairman, we
looked at the dogs that were available. We really got down and
we liked what we found with the TSA dogs, not only on how they
were trained, how they train the trainer, but the fact that
they have to be re-certified, and that is something we thought
was important.
We just did not get the dog in and get it there. The
trainer and the dog have to be re-certified.
Mr. Rogers. How often?
Chief Wilson. Every year. And if my trainer, if my officer
that is handling the dog--if they are not re-certified, I put
him back in regular patrol and the dog goes back to TSA.
Mr. Rogers. How many dogs do you have in service?
Chief Wilson. Right now I have a total of eight dogs, six
of which are TSA. Two are Auburn.
Mr. Rogers. How many do you need?
Chief Wilson. I would like to have a total of 20 dogs.
Mr. Rogers. Do you pay a flat rate to get these dogs? How
much do they cost?
Chief Wilson. TSA--they furnish the training, they furnish
the dog. They also furnish about a $40,000 a year supplement
for equipment such as the vehicle, the officer's salary, vet
bills, food, et cetera.
Auburn, right now we are pretty much paying the full load
now. We have done it through funds for ODP, but it is about
$95,000 the startup year because you have got to buy the
vehicle and all of that stuff.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Dr. Moriarty, you talked about your capacity. What is the
capacity currently at McClellan for training and what could it
be ramped up to?
Mr. Moriarty. Currently our capacity is to train 36 dog-
handler teams a year. We can ramp up and double that in less
than 6 months.
Mr. Rogers. And would you then be at maximum capacity in
that facility?
Mr. Moriarty. No, what we are saying--our anticipation is
to provide an additional kennel which would take us up to about
128 dog-handler teams a year.
Mr. Rogers. A year. And where do you get your dogs?
Mr. Moriarty. We breed a good deal of ours, as we
mentioned. We do have a domestic supplier. We do have a dealer
in the Netherlands for European dogs. And the concern, of
course, is that it would be unusual if the Europeans are giving
us their top dogs. I think they would be tending to keep their
top dogs for their own use. They are good dogs, there is no
doubt about that.
But also, if this is looked at as a national resource, the
ability to provide canines for our domestic needs, then it
seems to me that there should be some attention given to
breeding and providing our own canine population.
Mr. Rogers. That was one of the things that disturbed me
when I went to the Mexican border, and when I was in El Paso,
and I found out that they got almost all of their dogs--well,
not all, but a large percentage from Europe. And I heard Ms.
Recknor talk about getting hers from Europe.
And I just want to know why do we not have greater capacity
here to breed our own lines? Before the demonstration a little
while ago, I had the fellow with one of the dogs--it was a
Belgian something.
Ms. Recknor. Malinois.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. And he was with CBP, and he was telling me
that the bloodlines were much more pure over there. My question
is can we not establish the same kind of lines over here and
create breeding programs that are domestically controlled and
not have to rely on European sources? And if not, why not? And
if so, what would it take?
Mr. Moriarty. Mr. Chairman, I think we can do that. I think
part of the reasons why we have not done that in greater
capacity is that the needs have been so great, the demand has
been so high, that to meet the demands you have to acquire the
dogs as conveniently as you can in order to address the current
issues.
But I would again pose that long term we should have our
own supply of high-quality dogs.
Mr. Rogers. Do you have a breeding program in your--
Mr. Moriarty. Yes, sir, we do, using the Australian customs
dogs, an elite breed that is highly skilled for detection.
Mr. Rogers. How many can you produce a year?
Mr. Moriarty. We have had 21 litters so far, and we can--I
would have to ask my colleague how many we could get per year.
We could get up to 100 working dogs per year in the breeding
program.
Mr. Rogers. That you currently have?
Mr. Moriarty. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Could it be expanded to--
Mr. Moriarty. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. --include these Belgian dogs?
Mr. Moriarty. The Belgian Malinois. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. And what would it require? What kind of
commitment from DHS?
Mr. Moriarty. The issue is twofold. We would have to expand
the infrastructure to accommodate these animals, and then
basically--we are a non-profit. We are a university. We are a
501(c)(3). We do not have the profit motive, but we do have
full costs that we have to recover.
It would be the dependence that we would have an ongoing
partner with the federal agency who would be utilizing these
dogs.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Ms. Recknor, who do you think would be the appropriate
entity to establish the certification criteria for all these
dogs?
Ms. Recknor. That is a very interesting question, because
when you looked at the three federal agencies that were here,
everybody does something different. So I think it?
Mr. Rogers. And they all think they are right, too.
Ms. Recknor. Yes. One thing I have learned--I do not come
from a canine background. The canine people are a unique breed
unto themselves because they truly believe that their way is
the best way. And they are right that their way is the best way
for them. But it is all over the board.
I think what needs to happen is I think the federal
agencies need to come together with private entities such as
ours and really work at a standardization. I can tell you that
our dogs' standards for certification are much higher than what
is average for the federal agencies, only because we are
working under extreme duress at the ports.
Most of the dogs we have are the Belgian Malinois, and they
work harder than most federal agency dogs because they are in
the heat and they are working full 8-hour days.
Mr. Rogers. But what I am hearing you say is that you think
TSA, Border Patrol, ATF, as well as private entities such as
yours, should collaboratively work to decide what entity would
set the criteria--
Ms. Recknor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. --or what the criteria should be?
Ms. Recknor. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Rogers. What entity.
Ms. Recknor. What entity.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. My time has expired.
I now yield to my colleague from Florida for any questions
he may have.
Mr. Meek. Thank you all.
Ms. Recknor, I want to ask you a question. You started
talking about quality, and I think that is important, because I
know the demand--and Chief, I know that you are going to, as
they bill--what do they call it, MARTA?
Chief Wilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meek. Okay. As they bill your rail system and you start
to expand, you are going to need--there is going to be more
demand. And I was kind of leading to this on the other panel of
the cost savings or the cost savings by using--I call them
officers, but--canine officers, by using them versus the
personnel.
And if you could answer the question, and then, Chief, you
can come in behind her, Chief Wilson, by just talking about
some of the personnel issues, because in times outside of a 9/
11 kind of thinking, your budget got getter after 9/11.
I mean, you did not have to fight as hard as you used to
fight, I am pretty sure, for resources or what you needed. But
now after 9/11, not only are there more federal resources,
there are also state resources, I am pretty sure, in the
counties that you operate.
I am saying that to say that I believe, again, by doing a
good job we may run into times again where resources will be
hard to come by. But to jeopardize quality is an issue, and I
think something is very, very important to all of us as we
start looking at protecting America.
The federal agencies that are doing in-house training and
providing dogs I know cannot provide--well, canine officers
cannot provide and reach the demand alone. I mean, the private
sector has to play a role in it.
And like the chairman said, we have to have standards. You
advocated we have to have standards. Just can not put up a sign
and say we are in business to do business.
Ms. Recknor. Right.
Mr. Meek. We are more into supply and demand, but that
quality thing is far in the background, because our lives are
dependent on it.
So to sum it up, A, if you could address the issue of a
possible way that the private sector can play a role in the
issue of helping local law enforcement have more of a variety
of what kind of canine dogs that they need, and the officer
that they need.
And, Chief, if you can address the issue as it relates to
the personnel. Using the canine detector officers, the dogs
that I am speaking of--I know when you say canine officer, you
think of a person. But I used to be a state trooper, and I see
these canines as officers. They are a part of what we do.
Personnel-wise, has it made a difference as it relates to
staffing? You say well, I need 10 transit officers here, but
no, we have a canine there, we have two canine teams working
there, we actually only need six to carry out the mission that
we need.
Ms. Recknor. I think to answer the subject of quality, the
good thing about Garrison and Sloan is that Tony Guzman also
owns Metro Dade Canine, and he is a training facility. So there
is always--I do not want to say an abundance, but Tony always
has a lot of trained dogs, because he sells them to law
enforcement.
He sells to the police departments all over the country. So
when you look at quality, we have excellent quality dogs,
whether it be Metro Dade waiting to be sold--and some of them
we buy because we know the quality of our own dogs.
And it has been interesting. Some of the departments that
work for us on a subcontract basis have wound up purchasing
Tony's dogs because of the quality that they have seen.
So when it comes to quality, the private sector--again,
once there is standards--I can tell you the quality of our dogs
is second to none in this industry. But I can not say that
about other private companies.
Mr. Meek. And so let me--I am sorry to cut you off, because
time is limited. So I guess your testimony would be if we get
into the business of introducing the private sector into
playing a role in the Department of Homeland Security's mission
in protecting America that, A, there should be a level of
standards and certification or a private, quote, unquote,
trainer, training facility or training company to make sure
that these dogs, these canine potential officers, are up to
par, that it is not something that folks get a--I mean, someone
goes out and gets incorporated and then--
Ms. Recknor. Right.
Mr. Meek. --they are selling dogs to law enforcement
agencies, and we expect for them to be able to detect
explosives or what have you.
Ms. Recknor. I think one of the reasons why the federal
agencies have not partnered with private companies is because
they know of all the rogue companies that exist. And I can not
blame them. I go up against them every day for contracts with
private companies.
And they undercut us because they go to the pound, they get
their dogs, and they use pseudo-explosives. We pay top dollar
for the dogs and top dollar to maintain them. So I think once
the standard's in place, you will see the federal agencies
welcome, hopefully, the partnership.
Mr. Meek. Thank you.
Chief?
Chief Wilson. Representative Meek, what has happened since
9/11 is that there has been additional resources that has
flowed toward transit. But internally in transit, because the
economy slowed, that our budget actually was cut.
And the way I have staffed the canine positions is I have
taken officers from the regular patrol force and put them in
the canine function, at the cost of lowering the number,
reducing the number, of patrol officers.
And I have been able to live with it to about where I am at
this point. What has happened is the time to train the canine
handler and to retrain them has taken away from my day-to-day
ability to patrol and answer calls, and all those things that
you know from being a trooper that you just have to do.
What would help me now is not only the availability of
getting good certified dogs that I will be willing to bet
people's lives on, but also a way to fund the staff to support
those dogs. And when I say 20 more dogs, I am at eight right
now. We are going to try to push to 10.
But at that point, I just can not go any further because I
have not got any other staffing for the police department. In
fact, I have lost staffing. Since 9/11 I have actually reduced
the size of the department by 15 people, plus the people I have
taken out of patrol to put into dog handling capabilities. I
hope that answers your question.
Mr. Meek. It did. And I am glad you are dealing with it
every day. I am glad that you are a part of this panel.
I mean, with that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further
questions. But I believe that as this program, Mr. Chairman,
continues to get more and more popular and useful to law
enforcement in helping us protect America, standards is going
go be important.
We can not legislate morals and character, but we can
definitely legislate standards. If private companies or public
facilities such as our own in-house federal training areas--if
they have to reach certain standards, too, they should be the
same.
Mr. Rogers. Right. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to address the same question to the Chief and
Dr. Moriarty that I did to Ms. Recknor, and that is who do you
think the appropriate certification entity is or should be?
And, Chief Wilson, you first.
Chief Wilson. From my knowledge of working with these
programs since 1998, I think the appropriate agency would be
the TSA. I think the TSA dogs are--in my opinion, the re-
certification is very important.
But I also think that as far as being high profile, in the
public view and what they have been able to do, I would think
it would be the TSA, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Dr. Moriarty, same question.
Mr. Moriarty. It was my understanding that one of the
missions of this scientific working group that was being
established was to address the issue of standards. And I
certainly agree with the chief that TSA has a lead role.
Whether they should be the only player in that discussion I am
having a little bit of a problem with.
I think there should be a mix of those key agencies and
representatives from quality programs such as the university
and the private sector who should have a seat at the table to
make sure the standards and the bar is high.
Mr. Rogers. But you do think that there should be a uniform
set of standards?
Mr. Moriarty. Absolutely, no argument. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. And you think that it may be some entity
that has yet to be fashioned that would establish those
standards?
Mr. Moriarty. I do not know enough on that one, Mr.
Chairman, to answer.
Mr. Rogers. All right. I would like to ask you, Dr.
Moriarty, about the cost of your dogs. For you to breed dogs,
what does it cost?
Mr. Moriarty. Okay. It depends if we are training, for
example, a drug dog or an explosive dog. Explosive dogs, having
longer training, is a little bit more expensive. The cost of
that is about $14,000.
Now, that is full cost. That includes the direct costs of
training. It includes the overhead. It includes the
administrative costs. So it is full cost accounting. But that
is for a 10-week program.
Mr. Rogers. Of breeding?
Mr. Moriarty. Well, that includes the breeding. It includes
the dog and the canine handler training.
Mr. Rogers. If Ms. Recknor wanted to purchase a dog from
you, how much would it cost?
Mr. Moriarty. Just purchase a dog without the training?
Mr. Rogers. Correct.
Mr. Moriarty. $3,200 to $3,600.
Mr. Rogers. And how does that compare to what you are
paying in Europe, Ms. Recknor?
Ms. Recknor. Actually, it is pretty close for a dog that is
1.5 years to 2 years and ready to go.
Mr. Rogers. But now, yours will be trained.
Ms. Recknor. Ours are trained just on the seek methods. I
mean, we already know that they are going to work because Tony
tests them all over there, so we already know that they are
going to work.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
And last question, Dr. Moriarty--we have got to be out of
here for another hearing that is going to be in this room in
about 6 minutes or 7 minutes. Which do you think is the higher
priority at your facility? Is it growing the breeding program
or growing the training program?
Mr. Moriarty. Well, it is hard to separate that. What we do
best is breeding the animals and training them. We have a very
highly trained--as I mentioned, 200 years of collective
experience in our senior staffers.
So I would not want to separate the two entities, because
breeding the dogs and then distributing them for training
elsewhere is a need, but I think the benefits to a university,
particularly taking the research, putting that into the
training, and then getting the lessons learned out of the
training and pulling that back into research to find
solutions--that is the value added that we bring.
Mr. Rogers. Are there any other universities doing what you
are doing?
Mr. Moriarty. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
I want to thank the panelists. You all have been great.
This has been very informative and helpful to us.
I would like to remind the Members that if they would like
to submit additional questions--and you may get some additional
questions from Members that could not be here because of
conflicts--we are going to leave the record open for 10 days.
And if you could reply to those in written responses, I
would appreciate that.
And we would, again, ask that you exit quickly since we
have to be out of here--me, too--for this next hearing.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]