    [Senate Hearing 114-673]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 114-673

        DOGS OF DHS: HOW CANINE PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELAND SECURITY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 3, 2016

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the

            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    22-766PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                        Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
               Jose J. Bautisa, Senior Professional Staff Member
                  Rebecca N. Nuzzi, Professional Staff Member
                  Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
               John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                   Holly A. Idelson, Minority Senior Counsel
         Brian B. Turbyfill, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
             Abigail A. Shenkle, Minority Professional Staff Member
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Benjamin C. Grazda, Hearing Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Carper...............................................     3
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    25
        Senator Carper...............................................    27
        Senator Peters...............................................    29

                                    WITNESS
                            Thursday, March 3, 2016

    Doug Timberlake, Transportation Security Inspector,
      Transportation Security Administation; accompanied by Rriverso.     1
    Jennifer Jones, Agriculture Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border
      Protection; accompanied by Hudson..............................     2
    Patrick Dowling, Officer/Instructor, U.S. Customs and Border
      Protection; accompanied by Nicky...............................     2
    Kimberly S. Hutchinson, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Training and Development, Transportation Security
      Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security...........     5
    Damian Montes, Director, Canine Training Program, Office of
      Training and Development, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
      U.S. Department of Homeland Security; accompanied by Robert
      Lukason and Keith Barker.......................................     7
    Jennifer Grover, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
      Government Accountability Office...............................     9
    Cynthia M. Otto, D.V.M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Penn Vet
      Working Dog Center, University of Pennsylvania; accompanied by
      Jerry..........................................................    10

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Dowling, Patrick:
        Testimony....................................................     2
    Grover, Jennifer:
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Hutchinson, Kimberly S.:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Joint prepared statement.....................................    31
    Jones, Jennifer:
        Testimony....................................................     2
    Montes, Damian:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Joint prepared statement.....................................    31
    Otto, Cynthia M., D.V.M., Ph.D.:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Timberlake, Doug:
        Testimony....................................................     1

                                    APPENDIX

    Statements submitted for the Record from:
        American Civil Liberties Union...............................    69
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
        Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Montes................................    76

        DOGS OF DHS: HOW CANINE PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELAND SECURITY

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, and
    Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order. I am really looking forward to this hearing. This is
    something that has been really a couple of years in the
    planning from my standpoint, because I have always been
    intrigued by the capabilities of canine units and I love dogs,
    particularly little puppies like Jerry.
        What we are going to first start out with is we are going
    to introduce the two canine teams that later will be doing a
    demonstration for us. The first is the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) canine team. Doug Timberlake is a
    Transportation Security Inspector for TSA, and he is here with
    his partner, Rriverso, who has a pretty special name, named
    after somebody who was lost in the World Trade Center, I was
    told. Mr. Timberlake, kind of walk through it.

         TESTIMONY OF DOUG TIMBERLAKE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
    INSPECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED
                              BY RRIVERSO

        Mr. Timberlake. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
    Ranking Member. My name is Douglas Timberlake. I am an
    explosive detection canine handler with the Transportation
    Security Administration. My passenger screening canine,
    Rriverso, and I work at Ronald Reagan Washington National
    Airport. We conduct screening operations throughout various
    parts of the airport looking for both stationary improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) and person-borne IEDs to ensure the
    safety of the traveling public.
        There is no machine that can detect the presence of
    explosive materials the way that a canine can. Machines can
    confirm the presence of explosive substances, but they cannot
    reason and problem-solve to find the source of a substance.
        In a few minutes, you will see a demonstration of what it
    looks like when Rriverso alerts on a traveler carrying
    explosive material during a checkpoint screening operation.
        Finally, I would like to point out that Rriverso is named
    after Joseph Riverso, who was from White Plains, New York, and
    was in one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. A few
    years ago, he got to meet the family in New York, and I try to
    tell as many people as possible that he is out here keeping us
    all safe in Joe's name.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. That is a wonderful
    tribute. Thank you for your service.
        Next we will bring our Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    canine team, and this is Jennifer Jones, an Agriculture
    Specialist working with the Office of Field Operations at the
    Customs and Border Protection agency. She is here with her
    partner, Hudson.

       TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER JONES, AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST, U.S.
          CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; ACCOMPANIED BY HUDSON

        Ms. Jones. Hi. I am Jennifer Jones. I am with Customs and
    Border Protection. I am an agriculture handler. My partner is
    Hudson. He is an approximately 8-year-old Beagle that came out
    of Daytona Animal Control, Daytona, Florida. He is trying to
    find fruits, plants, meats, and seeds that are in the baggage
    of passengers that are entering the United States. He runs
    about 95 percent accurate most days. He does sometimes make a
    little mistake here and there, but he is usually pretty good.
    He has found everything from a single grape up to about 100
    pounds of coarse sausage that was in a bag.
        Chairman Johnson. What kind of dog is he, again?
        Ms. Jones. He is a Beagle.
        Chairman Johnson. He is a Beagle, OK. That is a pretty good
    size Beagle. I had one of those when I was growing up.
        Ms. Jones. He is on the bigger end.
        Chairman Johnson. Ours was plumper. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Jones. They can get fat. He walks a lot.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you.
        Next we have Patrick Dowling, and Patrick is a Customs and
    Border Protection Officer and Instructor. He is here with his
    partner, Nicky.

    TESTIMONY OF PATRICK DOWLING, OFFICER/INSTRUCTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS
              AND BORDER PROTECTION; ACCOMPANIED BY NICKY

        Mr. Dowling. Good morning. As you said, my name is Patrick
    Dowling. This is Nicky. He is a Belgian Malinois. He is 3 years
    old. He is trained to U.S. currency--and firearms. I currently
    work at the Dulles International Airport. We focus most of our
    efforts on the outbound side of detection for currency.
        Some of the significant things that he has done outbound
    finding currency is we intercept folks traveling out of the
    country and a lot of times they do make an initial report, and
    once they go by the dog, we find out a lot of times that those
    reports are not accurate. So we have to send them back. He is
    in the million dollar club about three times over now, so he
    has found about $3 million in 2 years.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Dowling. And, again,
    we are looking forward to the demonstration, which we will have
    when we have another member showing up, and I do want to have
    the Senator see that.
        Unfortunately, it has been a pretty busy day for different
    hearings and important hearings, so we do not have quite as
    many people as I had hoped. But we will convey the experience
    to everybody else.
        I would ask unanimous consent that my written opening
    statement be entered into the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 25.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I was saying before, this is a hearing that I have been
    wanting to hold for a couple of years. As we have held hearings
    on airport security and border security, I have been intrigued
    by the capabilities and the cost evaluation of using canine
    units, because I know they are very effective.
        And then I was fortunate to be hosted by Senator Pat Toomey
    at the University of Pennsylvania and the training center
    there, and we will have Dr. Otto talk about that in greater
    depth. But it was unbelievable in terms of the demonstration
    that we were shown at the University of Pennsylvania, and so I
    am so pleased that Dr. Otto is here.
        But when we take a look at airport security, I think as we
    talk to Secretary Jeh Johnson, always on his mind is the threat
    in terms of airlines and airline safety. I really do believe
    canine units can be one of those layers and a very effective
    layer in keeping this Nation safe and keeping our air traffic
    safe as well. So, again, I am really looking forward to this
    hearing. I am looking forward to the testimony. I want to thank
    the witnesses for coming and for your thoughtful testimony.
        And with that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    bringing us all together. I think most of us in the room have
    probably had a dog or two in our lives, and the Chairman
    mentioned that he once had a ``plump Beagle,'' I think he said.
    It reminds me that when I was a little boy, 5, 6, 7 years old,
    we had--in fact, up until I was about 12 or 13, we had Jack and
    Jill, a husband and wife team of Beagles. And they were great
    rabbit dogs. They chased a lot of rabbits. They were not plump.
    They were in great shape. But it sort of like reminds me of
    some of the joy we had with all of them, using their noses to
    find not currency, not weapons, but to look for rabbits, and to
    find a bunch of them as well.
        I just want to say that during multiple visits I have been
    fortunate to take down to our Southern Border and up to our
    Northern Border, I have always been impressed by the use of
    many force multipliers that help our border security officers
    maximize their effectiveness. Oftentimes, these force
    multipliers are high-tech. They are drones, they are fixed-wing
    aircraft, they are helicopters, they are aerostats, they are
    night vision cameras, surveillance cameras, motion detectors.
    You name it.
        But, also, sometimes we find out that our officers get
    critical help from some low-tech friends. I am thinking of the
    horses that guide the Border Patrol--I am sure you remember
    that visit down at the Texas border with Mexico--border agents
    trying to make their way through dense brush on horseback and,
    fortunately, because of the horses, they are able to do a much
    better job. And then we find that there are those gifted dogs,
    some of whom we are going to meet today, who can help find
    things and threats that are invisible to us as human beings.
        As we will hear, and perhaps even see, I think, later in
    the hearing, some of our specially trained dogs, how they can
    detect people or things that humans or machines just miss.
    Canines are already at work, as we know, across a number of
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs. For instance,
    DHS uses dogs to check for explosives within our airports and
    trains like the one I took today. We also see dogs hard at work
    between our ports of entry (POE) where they attempt to detect
    the illegal entry of people and goods.
        We know that the special abilities of these animals have
    already contributed to our homeland security. For example,
    canine teams are credited with helping CBP seize more than
    4,500 pounds of heroin in the last fiscal year (FY). That same
    year, dogs helped to track thousands of migrants along the
    southwest border of our country and discovered 83 people hiding
    in vehicles crossing through ports of entry. Other dogs have
    helped detect illicit plants or animals, while some helped find
    human remains near our borders.
        Security is not their only mission. Dogs have also been
    invaluable in search and rescue following natural disasters.
    This is an area where I am not sure we are doing enough to take
    advantage really of their capabilities.
        At the same time, these valuable tools are not free. Dogs
    with the proper abilities and temperament to conduct searches
    are expensive to buy and even more expensive to train and to
    deploy effectively, and we will hear about that today. As with
    all of our security investments, we must make sure we are
    deploying these canine teams in the most cost-effective way.
        Today we are going to hear about some of the open questions
    regarding canine teams. I think, in particular, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) has taken a hard look at TSA's
    canine program and raised some questions about how and where
    they are trained and deployed. And while TSA has successfully
    addressed some of GAO's earlier concerns, I understand that
    some other questions remain, and maybe we will have a chance to
    hear those today.
        I look forward to hearing from both agencies about the
    current status of their canine programs and plans for the
    future. We also need to drill down on what these canines can
    and cannot accomplish and what information is needed to make
    sure we are making the right investments in these force
    multipliers.
        This is going to be an interesting hearing, and we look
    forward to it. Thank you all for joining us.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. I do not know
    about your Beagles, but my Beagle did not realize he was a dog.
    He was just a younger brother. He actually sat up in a chair.
        Senator Carper. I thought one of these dogs was going to
    try to get in that chair over there and reach the mic. But it
    did not happen. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. It is the tradition of this Committee to
    swear in witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your
    right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before
    this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth, so help you, God?
        Ms. Hutchinson. I do.
        Mr. Montes. I do.
        Ms. Grover. I do.
        Ms. Otto. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Let us start with testimony. We are hoping for at least one
    or two additional Members to come before we do the
    demonstration, but if they do not, I also want to make sure we
    get the dogs before they get restless. We may interrupt in
    between witnesses.
        Our first witness is Kimberly Hutchinson. Ms. Hutchinson is
    the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Training
    and Development at the Transportation Security Administration.
    In her capacity, she oversees TSA's technical and leadership
    training, workforce development, and engagement programs. Ms.
    Hutchinson.

       TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY S. HUTCHINSON,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
          ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT,
      TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

        Ms. Hutchinson. Thank you, sir. Chairman Johnson, Ranking
    Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify regarding TSA's canine training program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared joint statement of Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Montes
    appears in the Appendix on page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TSA procures, trains, and deploys both TSA-led and State
    and local law enforcement-led canine teams to secure our
    Nation's transportation systems. Congress has recognized the
    value of TSA's canine program through its continued support and
    funding. It is currently the largest explosives detection
    canine program in DHS and the second largest in the Federal
    Government, with 997 funded canine teams currently stationed at
    more than 100 of our Nation's airports, mass transit, and cargo
    environments. The success of TSA's canine program is a prime
    example of Federal, State, and local government entities
    working together.
        Given the security value of explosive detection canines,
    TSA must ensure a reliable and adequate supply of canines. TSA
    procures canines primarily through an Interagency Service
    Agreement with the Department of Defense, which supplies TSA
    with approximately 230 canines each year. TSA partners with the
    Department of Defense (DOD) during the canine selection and
    evaluation process on both State-side vendors and overseas
    buying trips, ensuring TSA's needs are met.
        In addition to procuring canines through DOD, TSA is
    exploring procurement of both trained and untrained canines
    from qualified private sector businesses. TSA's goal is to
    procure an additional 20 trained passenger screening canines
    and 20 untrained canines suitable for passenger screening in
    fiscal year 2016 through this new procurement initiative.
        Once TSA procures a canine, the agency pairs it with a
    Federal, State, or local handler to be trained to operate in
    the aviation, multimodal, maritime, mass transit, or cargo
    environments.
        The majority of canine teams working in the aviation
    environment are comprised of a canine and a State or local law
    enforcement officer. For these teams, TSA provides and trains
    the dog, trains the handler, provides training aids and
    explosive storage magazines, and conducts annual onsite
    evaluations of these canines. TSA partially reimburses each
    participating agency for operational costs associated with
    maintaining the teams, and in return, the law enforcement
    agencies agree to use the canines in their assigned environment
    for at least 80 percent of the handler's duty time.
        In addition to State and local law enforcement-led teams,
    TSA Inspectors lead 322 canine teams, including all of our
    passenger screening canine teams, which are specifically
    trained to detect explosives' odor on passengers in the
    checkpoint environment, in addition to their conventional
    explosives detection role.
        TSA and State and local law enforcement handlers travel
    from across the country to TSA's Canine Training Center (CTC),
    located on Lackland Air Force Base down in San Antonio, Texas,
    to be paired with a canine and complete training. The canine
    teams learn explosives detection in a very intense training
    environment, and teams are trained to detect a variety of
    explosives based on intelligence data and emerging threats.
        In fact, tomorrow TSA will hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony
    for a new 25,000-square-foot facility at the Training Center
    with seven new classrooms, a 100-seat auditorium, and
    administrative space.
        Approximately 30 days after graduating from the training
    program and returning to its duty station, each canine team
    undergoes an assessment to ensure operational proficiency in
    that environment. Upon successful completion of the assessment,
    canine teams are then evaluated on an annual basis under the
    most stringent of applicable certification standards.
        TSA allocates canine teams to specific cities and airports
    utilizing risk-based criteria. Passenger screening canine teams
    are critical to TSA's risk-based security efforts and are
    deployed to operate during peak periods at 40 of our Nation's
    largest airports, where they have the opportunity to screen
    tens of thousands of passengers every day. TSA is working to
    train and certify all of its 322 canine teams in both passenger
    screening and traditional explosive detection screening by the
    end of fiscal year 2017.
        In addition to deployments at passenger screening
    checkpoints, TSA and law enforcement-led teams conduct a
    variety of search and high visibility activities that address
    potential threats in the transportation domain, including
    Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operations.
        The Government Accountability Office, DHS Inspector General
    (IG), and other independent testers have proven canine teams to
    be one of the most effective means of detecting explosives
    Canine teams are critical to TSA's focus on security
    effectiveness, and TSA continues to develop its canine training
    program to maximize its contributions to transportation
    security.
        Last, I would like to thank all of the hardworking men and
    women canine handlers across the Nation's transportation system
    who keep us safe every day, as well as the very dedicated staff
    that support the program and train our canines down in
    Lackland.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important
    program, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson.
        Our next witness is Damian Montes. Mr. Montes is the
    Director of the Canine Program at U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection. Mr. Montes started his career in the United States
    Marine Corps (USMC). Subsequently, he graduated from the
    Department of Defense Military Working Dog Handler Course and
    joined CBP. He is a former handler. Mr. Montes.

       TESTIMONY OF DAMIAN MONTES,\1\ DIRECTOR, CANINE TRAINING
     PROGRAM, OFFICE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
       BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
             ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT LUKASON AND KEITH BARKER

        Mr. Montes. Good morning, Chairman Johnson and Ranking
    Member Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today
    and talk about the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Canine
    Training Program. I am the Director of the CBP Canine Training
    Program and am responsible for the administrative and
    operational oversight of our two Canine Training and Delivery
    Centers, one located in Front Royal, Virginia, and the other in
    El Paso, Texas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared joint statement of Mr. Montes and Ms. Hutchinson
    appears in the Appendix on page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CBP Canine Program is the fusion of two legacy training
    facilities: the legacy U.S. Customs Canine Enforcement Training
    Center and the U.S. Border Patrol National Canine Facility. The
    merger of these two training entities afforded the CBP Canine
    Training Program to build on decades of established expertise
    in law enforcement canine training and to capitalize on best
    practices.
        The CBP Canine Training Centers are where CBP workers,
    canines, handlers, and instructors receive classroom and
    practical training and the canine discipline utilized to
    support the critical mission of detecting and addressing cross-
    border illicit activities, including gun and currency
    smuggling, narcotics smuggling, human trafficking and
    smuggling, and illegal immigration.
        The CBP Canine Training Program delivers several courses
    for handlers and instructors to support the mission in multiple
    operational environments. These courses include concealed human
    and narcotic detection, currency and firearms detection, human
    remains/cadaver detection, tracking and trailing, search and
    rescue, patrol, and recertification instruction course.
        Our training cadre is comprised of experienced CBP law
    enforcement officers and agents, also know as course developer
    instructors, who come to us from existing field canine units
    and serve a 3-to 5-year instructor detail. I must highlight the
    significance of having such subject matter experts with recent
    and relative field experience deliver canine training and
    instruction to the next generation of canines, handles, and
    instructors. The value they contribute to the CBP Canine
    Training Program's mission is immeasurable. Furthermore,
    recruiting experienced canine instructors from within the ranks
    of CBP ensures a continuity of expertise and availability of
    training opportunities.
        The course developer instructors who work at our training
    centers bring with them not only the passion of being a canine
    handler, but being part of a specialized unit that provides a
    unique and valuable capability to CBP's front-line law
    enforcement mission. But I would be remiss not to mention our
    support staff--our veterinarians, our animal health
    technicians, our animal caretakers, our maintenance support
    personnel, and our mission support admin personnel, who play an
    integral part in ensuring the effectiveness and the delivery of
    our training.
        The CBP Canine Training Program can be credited with
    training some of the best canine teams that work at any of our
    international border crossings, international airports, and
    vast open areas of our border. The CBP canine officers and
    agents who work with the CBP Canine Training Program have also
    assisted in capacity-building initiatives with the Office of
    International Affairs and developing and delivering canine
    training for our international partners. Furthermore, our
    training centers are available to Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement agencies wanting to receive formal training and
    certification in any of the canine training disciplines we
    deliver.
        The canine team is an invaluable asset to the operational
    border and port environments, regardless of the presence of
    other detection technologies, providing an unmatched law
    enforcement capability to address the ever changing challenges
    and threats.
        Over the past 3 years, the CBP Canine Training Program,
    under the oversight of the Office of Training and Development,
    has ensured that CBP canine training centers' academic
    curriculum, practical applications, evaluations, certification,
    and overall training provides the standard and fidelity that
    meets the CBP operational needs and requirements.
        As border conditions and enforcement environments have ever
    changed over the past 30 years or more, CBP's law enforcement
    canine teams have remained constant, reliable, invaluable
    assets to our Nation's security. Each and every day they
    demonstrate and validate their importance through numerous
    seizures and detections.
        I am honored to be part of the CBP Canine Program and
    appreciate the opportunity to share our efforts today, and I am
    welcome to answer any questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director Montes.
        Our next witness is Jennifer Grover. Director Grover is the
    Director in the Homeland Security and Justice Team at the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office. In this position, she
    oversees GAO's reviews of TSA programs and operations. Director
    Grover.

     TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER GROVER,\1\ DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY
           AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Ms. Grover. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
    Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss TSA's
    implementation of their canine program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Grover appears in the Appendix on
    page 43.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TSA has funding for 997 canine teams. They include
    conventional canines, which are trained to detect explosives in
    stationary objects such as vehicles and baggage, and passenger
    screening canines (PSCs), which receive extra training to
    detect explosives carried by a person. When fully deployed, TSA
    canines will be paired with about 675 law enforcement handlers
    and 322 TSA handlers.
        Following GAO's 2013 report and recommendations, TSA made
    significant improvements to its canine program.
        First, TSA has enhanced its use of data to monitor program
    performance. As an example, field canine coordinators now
    regularly analyze the covert testing data to determine the root
    causes of team failures so that they can be addressed.
        Second, TSA demonstrated that passenger screening canine
    teams reliably identify explosives and determined that they
    should be placed at the passenger checkpoint queues to have the
    greatest impact.
        And, third, TSA has deployed PSC teams to the highest-risk
    airports.
        One important issue remains for TSA's consideration based
    on our prior work. When TSA conducted its initial effectiveness
    assessment of these specialized passenger screening canines, it
    also carried out one of the search exercises with three
    conventional canine teams. So those are the teams that do not
    receive the specialized training.
        The results suggested that the conventional canines might
    be as effective as the canines with the PSC training at
    detecting explosives on people under some scenarios. We
    recommended that TSA should test whether the passenger
    screening canines provide an enhanced security benefit relative
    to the conventional canines and, thus, whether the cost of that
    additional training is warranted.
        TSA officials told us that they did not plan to carry out
    the assessment, citing concerns about the temperament of some
    of the conventionally trained canines and the potential
    liability risk to the agency if it operated conventional
    canines in a passenger screening environment for which they had
    not been trained. We respect TSA's concerns on these issues and
    encourage TSA to consider multiple options for going forward
    with this testing.
        Some conventional canines are suitable breeds, initial
    assessments could take place in a testing environment with role
    players instead of actual passengers, and conventionally
    trained canines could be trained to operate at the checkpoint.
        We continue to believe that this assessment is warranted.
    If the results show that conventional canines are equally as
    effective as passenger screening canines, then TSA could save
    resources currently spent on the specialized training.
        Regarding the magnitude of the potential savings, in our
    2013 study the difference in TSA's startup costs between the
    passenger screening and the conventional canines was $19,000
    per canine. TSA's update for this hearing indicates that the
    difference in startup costs has shrunk to $5,000 per canine,
    which clearly reduces the potential for savings.
        Since TSA plans to expand its PSC training to all 322
    canines with TSA handlers, based on TSA's numbers the savings
    could still be as much as $1.5 million each time the full set
    of TSA-led canines is retired and placed. That is a very small
    fraction of TSA's annual spending for the canine program, but
    still represents a potential opportunity for TSA to be more
    efficient with its limited resources.
        Finally, whether or not the extra PSC training turns out to
    make a difference, TSA could realize additional savings if some
    of the canines were paired with law enforcement handlers
    instead of TSA handlers. Since TSA covers salary, benefits, and
    vehicle expenses for its own handlers, the annual cost to TSA
    for a TSA-led team is $100,000 more than a team led by a law
    enforcement officer.
        In 2013, TSA officials told us that they were considering
    this approach, but to this point, TSA has not yet paired
    passenger screening canines with law enforcement handlers.
        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director Grover.
        Our final witness is Dr. Cynthia Otto. Dr. Otto is the
    founder and executive director for the Penn Vet Working Center
    at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on
    canine health and behavior. Dr. Otto has also been involved
    with search and rescue dogs and disaster response as a member
    of the Pennsylvania Urban Search and Rescue Task Force,
    including deployments for Hurricane Katrina and during 9/11.
    Dr. Otto.

       TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA M. OTTO, D.V.M., PH.D.,\1\ EXECUTIVE
         DIRECTOR, PENN VET WORKING DOG CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF
                   PENNSYLVANIA; ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY

        Dr. Otto. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Johnson and
    Ranking Member Carper. It is a pleasure to be here.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Otto appears in the Appendix on
    page 58.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to introduce one of our dogs from the program.
    He is a 10\1/2\-week-old German Shepherd, born in Kansas. He is
    donated to our program, and his name is Jerry. And like all of
    the dogs donated to our program, he is named after one of the
    dogs that worked at the site after 9/11. He is being handled by
    one of our veterinary students from Penn Vet, Meghan Ramos. You
    will be able to meet him after the hearing and learn more about
    his future career.
        The Penn Vet Working Dog Center is a not-for-profit
    research and development center for detection dogs. Our program
    was developed based on our experience with a wide variety of
    organizations, including DOD, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA), CBP, TSA, police canine departments, the Seeing
    Eye, Puppies Behind Bars, and even pet dog training. Our scope
    of work focuses on the genetic, environmental, behavioral, and
    physical characteristics that lead to successful detection
    performance.
        Since dogs enter our program at 8 weeks of age, our unique
    emphasis includes the impact of early development in enhancing
    the career success of these dogs. Our training philosophy is
    rooted in positive reinforcement and enhancing the dog's
    genetic potential.
        Dogs in our program attend school 5 days a week to learn
    job skills, but live with foster families nights and weekends
    to learn life skills. At the Penn Vet Working Dog Center, we
    operate based on a hypothesis-driven method rather than a
    belief system.
        Consistent with the theme of our upcoming working dog
    conference, Working Dogs 360, a multidisciplinary approach, we
    welcome ideas from all sectors. We then evaluate and collect
    data to test these hypotheses and determine what works best for
    each dog, each discipline, and each program.
        We embrace the opportunities that arise when things do not
    go as planned, which is often. We actually find that some of
    these opportunities are the most valuable learning experiences
    that we have, and in the case of the dogs, we call it ``a
    training opportunity.''
        From this perspective, the key points that I would like to
    highlight for the Committee are: one, that dogs have great
    value in preserving national security; and, two, there are
    strategies that as a Nation on which we can come together and
    will facilitate the success of the dogs in this vital mission.
        I think the first fact that is undisputed is that the
    ability of dogs to smell and identify minute quantities of odor
    far exceeds that of humans and most machines. The other
    universal fact across agencies is that one of the biggest
    challenges to canine programs is the availability of dogs that
    have the physical and behavioral characteristics necessary to
    perform the tasks needed.
        One of the major reasons for the shortage of quality dogs
    is that we rely heavily on procurement of dogs from other
    countries. By outsourcing our national security requirements,
    we give up control of the type of dogs, the health of the dogs,
    and the early training of the dogs. We also are at risk for
    supply interruption due to politics, disaster, or disease.
        Given that we know many of the desirable traits are
    controlled by genetics and that continuous improvements can be
    made through selective breeding, letting these decisions be
    made by organizations that do not have our best national
    interests foremost we are, again, putting ourselves at risk.
        The research in our program and others has shown that
    factors during development of dogs have an important impact on
    behavior and health, including the length of their working
    careers. Again, without having control or input over this
    aspect of the dog's lives increases the risk of shortened
    working life or failed careers.
        So how do we best leverage the scientific knowledge in
    genetics, development, behavior, and health? To us, a national
    breeding program is a priority. The critical features of a
    programmatic success include both superior dog performance and
    sound economics. The goal is to create a cooperative that
    provides dogs to all of the programs that support national
    security.
        To achieve this, all organizations need to communicate and
    work together to identify the genetic and behavioral
    characteristics of the dogs that meet their requirements. So we
    feel that this would represent a Center of Excellence, which is
    classic in homeland security.
        So I would like to thank you for your attention and welcome
    any questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Dr. Otto.
        We are expecting three more members, I am told, within 5
    minutes, but that is Senate time.
        I want to go back to you, Dr. Otto, because I want to get
    some sense of how many trained dogs are utilized in the United
    States for seeing eye purposes, other specialized purposes, as
    well as law enforcement. Do you have any feel for the total
    number of specialized trained dogs?
        Dr. Otto. So the specialized trained dogs is sort of an
    open question. There are so many new areas, particularly if we
    are talking in the service dog field, where we are talking
    about seeing eye, the autism support dogs, and other dogs.
    Through the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal
    detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), I know that they were estimating
    somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 dogs used, and remembering
    that dogs, when they are employed, they have a fixed life span,
    and so they are retiring at a regular rate. And even if we can
    improve their working life by a year, we are going to impact
    the cost-effectiveness.
        Chairman Johnson. Is that about 8 to 9 years? Is that kind
    of on average?
        Dr. Otto. Eight to nine is pretty typical. Now, a lot of
    dogs,
    some organizations will retire dogs at 9 years of age. This is
    often fixed--and most dogs do not start until they are about 2.
    So they may have as short a career as 7 and even less,
    depending.
        Chairman Johnson. But service dogs are really completely
    different from the standpoint of training and their specialty,
    correct?
        Dr. Otto. Absolutely. The service dogs have taught us a lot
    about the selective breeding. They have taught us a lot about
    how to train some of these dogs. But they are very different
    dogs. They are kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from
    the high-energy, hunting-driven dogs that we are looking at.
        Chairman Johnson. And we breed those here in the United
    States.
        Dr. Otto. Correct. Most of the service dog programs do have
    their own breeding programs. The Seeing Eye, Canine Companions
    for Independence, they have really large breeding programs.
        Chairman Johnson. Now, between TSA and CBP, I have about
    2,500 canine units. Is that pretty accurate, about 1,000 with
    the TSA and about 1,400, 1,500 in CBP?
        Mr. Montes. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you have any idea in terms of how many
    other specialized units, canine units, in just conventional law
    enforcement?
        Mr. Montes. No. At this time I do not, sir.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. I want to get back to that. Do we
    have another member coming? OK. This is it.
        As long as we have a quorum for our demonstration, let us
    proceed with that. And I think we are going to start with TSA,
    and, Ms. Hutchinson, can you describe what we are going to see
    in terms of this demonstration?
        Ms. Hutchinson. Absolutely. Yes, so we have Rriverso, our
    canine, our Labrador out of Reagan Airport (DCA) here, and his
    handler, Doug Timberlake. And what we are going to try to
    simulate here it is a TSA checkpoint. So, essentially, your
    staff are passengers, and what you are going to see is the
    passengers are going to come through. There is one passenger
    that has a training aid explosive on them, and here is Rriverso
    and Doug.
        [Demonstrations begin.]
        So what you will see Doug doing is giving some search
    gestures to Rriverso here as the passengers come through, and
    then you will see very quickly what passenger has that live
    explosive on them.
        Chairman Johnson. Are the passengers coming?
        Ms. Hutchinson. I think they are here.
        Chairman Johnson. OK.
        Ms. Hutchinson. OK. So we have our passengers coming
    through the checkpoint here. We are going to see Rriverso start
    to work, use his nose.
        And there you go. So if you noticed, he locked in on the
    passenger with the briefcase very quickly, and then he was
    immediately rewarded with his tennis ball, which is his reward
    of choice.
        Chairman Johnson. And the briefcase had what in it?
        Ms. Hutchinson. It had an explosive.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. How many times is that wrapped?
        Ms. Hutchinson. It is safe.
        Chairman Johnson. I will move into that in other questions,
    because that is what amazed me at the University of
    Pennsylvania is how it just almost impossible to wrap these
    things enough. It is impossible.
        OK. Our next one, Director Montes, can you kind of describe
    what we are going to be seeing in this next demonstration?
        [Demonstration begins.]
        Mr. Montes. Yes, this is Ms. Jones and her canine, Hudson.
    So Canine Hudson is trained to find five different types of
    items. In the airport environment, they are going to be
    screening in the passenger environment for any type of illegal
    agricultural products.
        Chairman Johnson. And you have planted some illegal
    agricultural products in the hearing room somewhere?
        Mr. Montes. Yes, we did.
        Chairman Johnson. I am a real rule follower.
        Mr. Montes. Now, so she responded. She sat down.
        Chairman Johnson. So she has located it.
        Mr. Montes. Yes. If you look right over the edge there, you
    can see it. And then what they have is an apple.
        Chairman Johnson. It looks harmless enough. [Laughter.]
        So that was an agricultural product. Then we have another
    demonstration of a different type of----
        Mr. Montes. Yes, we do. We have the currency/firearms dog
    coming in. This is Mr. Dowling and his canine, Nicky. As well,
    we will have some of your staffers--they will have a training
    aid planted on them, currency, and as soon as they come in, he
    will be able to screen them and identify which one is the one
    that is carrying the currency, the training aid.
        [Demonstration begins.]
        So as the passengers come through, Mr. Dowling will start
    screening them with the canine, Nicky.
        [Pause.]
        And so once he identifies that there is something there
    that should not be there--i.e., the contraband--he is going to
    go ahead and respond. And now he is going to get his toy as a
    reward, and the positive indication. So what he gave him right
    now is a PVC pipe.
        Chairman Johnson. I guess whatever works.
        Mr. Montes. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I
    would have thought he would have responded to that blue suit,
    but that shows you how well trained they are.
        Again, thank you. I will say, as impressive as that
    demonstration is, going to the University of Pennsylvania and
    seeing them really on the job, it is dramatically more
    impressive, I mean, what they are able to do. Let us pick up
    where we left off. Thank you, Senator.
        I want to get back to actually supplying the chain and how
    many dogs we really would like to have and how many we could
    really employ. So, again, we are talking about within TSA and
    CBP about 2,500 canine units now. How many would you like to
    have? Is that kind of adequate for the task? Or could we
    utilize a lot more? Let us start with you, Director Montes.
        Mr. Montes. I will start with a question. So that would be
    an operational requirement to determine both components based
    on their needs of the service to identify what would be their
    optimal number as far as what would assist their multilayer
    approach as far as enforcement operations.
        On our side of the fence, as far as the training
    operations, our requirement is to be able to develop the
    capacity and capability to deliver those dogs once those
    demands and needs and requirements are addressed.
        Chairman Johnson. But do you get a sense, working with the
    other folks in your agency, that there is a greater demand? Is
    there always demand for what you are trying to do? Or, again,
    there may not be demand because we just do not have the budget
    for it.
        Mr. Montes. So the current demand as it stands right now,
    you have the operational floors for the Office of Border
    Patrol, which is 1,113, and as well as for the Office of Field
    Operations, which currently right now is 481. And so those
    numbers are still vacancies in the field that we are still
    trying to go ahead and backfill those positions.
        So we have not reach that floor yet, so it would pretty
    much determine on the components to determine how much higher
    they would want to go after all those positions are filled.
        Chairman Johnson. So you are saying you are 481 short right
    now?
        Mr. Montes. No, sir. Those are the positions.
        Chairman Johnson. Oh, OK. How many short are you?
        Mr. Montes. So 25 positions right now for the Office of
    Field Operations and 300 for the Office of Border Patrol.
        Chairman Johnson. So a pretty good shortage.
        Ms. Hutchinson, do you have a sense in terms of TSA, if you
    could have everything you would want to provide the security
    that we are really looking for in this country, what is your
    sense?
        Ms. Hutchinson. I think that is sort of the $1 million
    question. I think today we have 997 teams throughout the
    Nation, so what we have been doing within that group of teams
    that are currently funded is figuring out how we can really
    maximize them. So as you saw that PSC capability, we just
    rolled that out in 2011, so 5 years ago, which is fairly recent
    for this new concept of operations (CONOPS). So what we are
    sort of learning over time is how to best utilize their time
    screening passengers, so really deploying them at those peak
    periods.
        So we are really trying to maximize with what we have. I
    think moving forward I certainly see we would have more canines
    as part of the security.
        Chairman Johnson. But of the 997, it looks like only 300
    are doing passenger screening, and others are deployed with
    other local law enforcement agencies. What are they doing, also
    transportation? So they are doing trains and bus stations? Is
    it all transportation-related?
        Ms. Hutchinson. That is right. They service all the modes.
    So you would see them, potentially on Amtrak or on buses,
    transit, yes. So they are covering everything, and many of them
    are also deployed in aviation.
        But to your question earlier about the supply, we lose
    about 13 percent of our dogs a year, so about 150 either retire
    for aging out or physical things. So we need to buy about 230 a
    year just to sustain the current operations, and we have found
    a good supply, if you will, of the dogs that we need. However,
    we are going through this process of trying to procure more
    dogs domestically, so if we did have a surge, we would be able
    to buy maybe quicker and bring on dogs into the program more
    quickly.
        Chairman Johnson. Now, the ones that are not used for
    passenger screening in airports, those are being handled by
    local law enforcement officials then? So you are supplying the
    local agencies?
        Ms. Hutchinson. That is correct. We train the dogs and the
    handlers. We work in partnership with them today, yes. If we
    have an unattended bag as an example, we would call law
    enforcement for resolving that.
        Chairman Johnson. So, Dr. Otto, we obviously breed a lot of
    dogs in this country, and what is the secret sauce in terms of
    the European breeders that we are only going there? What is
    preventing us from breeding them here in the United States?
        Dr. Otto. I think it is tradition, and I think it is also
    why the dogs are being bred in this country. In Eastern Europe,
    which is the major source of most of our working dogs, they
    have a long history of breeding dogs for work, whether it is
    specifically for work or even competitions that are work-
    related. In this country we tend to breed dogs for pets and for
    show, and those are not the same kinds of dogs that we need for
    this kind of work.
        So in order to breed dogs in this country for this kind of
    work, we really have to look at what are we selecting. A lot of
    our Labradors are coming from hunting lines, so that is at
    least a domestic resource. But even so, they are breeding for
    different reasons, and so we are lucky when we get some of
    these dogs that are very successful, but we need to think about
    what are our goals, physically, behaviorally, that support the
    tasks that these dogs are doing. And it is not always what the
    breeders who are competing or hunting with their dogs are
    breeding for. So identifying those traits, identifying if they
    are heritable so that we can selectively improve the physical
    and behavioral characteristics of the dogs.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Well, I will pick up on this in the
    next round. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. First, a couple lighthearted questions. I
    noted that the dogs got a reward for their search efforts. One
    dog's reward was a tennis ball, and another dog's reward was a
    piece of PVC pipe.
        What is the role and the importance of the reward? How are
    they selected? And do dogs react if they have the wrong reward
    or no reward? I presume they act differently. Who chooses the
    reward? Is it good for a lifetime? Give us a little bit of--
    just real quickly on that.
        Mr. Montes. Absolutely. So our primary reward is a toy. It
    is toy-driven prey drive for the canines. So I either have a
    rubber pipe, a PVC pipe. It depends on what the dog really
    enjoys to work for, because that is his paycheck at the end of
    the day.
        So if there is a canine that, for example, uses a PVC pipe
    which he enjoys at this point, but at some point in training
    decides, hey, I like the rubber better than the other one, then
    it would transition. The idea is we want the canine to be able
    to work, and we want to be able to feed that drive toward that
    reward so that canine continually produces over the course of
    his service life.
        Senator Carper. All right. How many years, on average, do
    these dogs serve?
        Mr. Montes. So our canines primarily are between 7 and 9
    years old.
        Senator Carper. And what is the average life span of a dog
    that does this kind of work?
        Mr. Montes. So the average lifetime depends on the canine,
    sir. Currently, we have some dogs that are still in service at
    11 years old. Obviously, we want to make sure that we have a
    quality of life for our canines. We make high demands from our
    canines in the field, so we want to make sure we have a process
    in place to retire them at a suitable age so they have a
    quality retired life after. So their lifetime really depends on
    the individual canine, sir.
        Senator Carper. OK. There are other agencies that have
    canine programs in the Department. For example, I think just
    within DHS, you have FEMA where they use canine teams to
    conduct search and rescue operations. The Federal Protective
    Service I think deploys dogs to sweep Federal buildings looking
    for explosives.
        I do not know who I should ask this of. We will start with
    you, Damian, but could you just describe for us, if you could,
    any departmentwide efforts within DHS to share best practices
    and to find efficiencies in order to improve the respective
    programs?
        Mr. Montes. Sure. I have been in this position for the last
    2\1/2\ years, and since I have been in this position, we have
    conducted numerous outreach on how to improve our program or
    share best practices with others. We have met with TSA. We have
    also met with Ms. Otto on different occasions to identify ways
    that we have in our program that we can improve on.
        We have also visited Lackland Air Force Base, DOD, because
    at the end of the day everybody has and is still and
    continually evolves their canine training practices.
        As far as shared tactics or shared facilities, we do extend
    our training availability to local, Federal, and State law
    enforcement agencies. So we are constantly working with them as
    well to either start a program or to advance or evolve their
    current program in existence.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        I was struck, Dr. Otto, by your testimony where you
    mentioned that many of the errors made by canine teams are not
    the errors made by the dog but by the human handler. What are
    the requirements and limitations of a good human handler? And
    how well are we training that half of the canine team?
        Dr. Otto. So I think that is a really great point, that it
    is a team, and the dog----
        Senator Carper. Would you say that again?
        Dr. Otto. The dog and the handler are a team.
        Senator Carper. No, I am just kidding. Not many of our
    witnesses say that, do they, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.]
        Dr. Otto. That is a great point. It is a very good point.
    Excellent points.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Dr. Otto. So the team is really critical, and the dog, a
    lot of times we actually get in the way of the dog. And it
    really is something that we have to be paying very close
    attention to. When you have a team that works in synchrony, it
    is kind of like watching dancers, because they are so good at
    reading each other, and that is our goal. And I think a lot of
    times we do focus on the dog side of it, and we are not paying
    as much attention to training the handler.
        In our program we try to help our dogs work as
    independently as possible, and I think that is a lot of the
    goals here, too, especially with the passenger screening
    canines, that they really do need to work more independently.
        So I think those are goals that most organizations are
    working toward, but I think we still have a ways to go in
    finding our best handlers, training our handlers in the best
    way possible and making sure that the team is working well
    together.
        Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
        Another question, and this might be for you, Ms.
    Hutchinson. It is a question about metrics. What metrics, if
    any, exist to indicate that the passenger screening canine
    training provides an added security benefit in return for the
    additional costs? And how was the passenger screening canine
    certification standard developed?
        Ms. Hutchinson. So we have been developing sort of the
    standard in the last 5 years, and really it is a training and
    certification standard. So in terms of metrics, the reason we
    know that these dogs are highly effective is very high
    evaluation rate on an annual basis by a third party. Science
    and Technology (S&T) helps us, another DHS Directorate, helps
    us in the evaluation process. We go in once a year to every
    airport and test these dogs on all of the odors to make sure
    they are proficient, and then just locally. A dog like
    Rriverso, he has to certify every 45 days on all of those
    odors, and if he does not, he comes out of the operation and
    gets retrained, if you will.
        So it is mostly just those evaluations, during the year,
    and then, of course, certification at the end of the year.
        Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
        And if I could, Ms. Grover, in your testimony, you talked
    about some of the recommendations maybe the GAO has made to
    improve these programs. Would you just mention again--I think
    you did, but maybe a recommendation or two that has not been
    fully implemented, has not been accepted? Let us just talk
    about that for a minute.
        Ms. Grover. Sure. TSA has done a terrific job addressing
    the vast majority of our recommendations, and we completely
    agree that robust data exists to show that the passenger
    screening canines are effective at detecting explosives. There
    is a range. The data show that there are some airports and some
    teams that do not do as well as others, and so hopefully TSA
    will follow-up on that information and make sure that they are
    providing support to the teams that need it so that they can
    continue to improve.
        But the question that remains for GAO is whether or not it
    is the extra-specialized passenger screening training that
    makes the PSC canines effective or whether they could do just
    as well with the conventional training that all the canines
    receive, what the regular law enforcement handlers and their
    canines receive as well.
        Senator Carper. OK. My time has expired. As the Chairman
    mentioned earlier, we all serve on a bunch of different
    committees and subcommittees, and a number of those are in
    sessions right now. I am going to slip out and go to one to
    learn a little bit more about implementing the Trans-Pacific
    Trade Partnership in the Finance Committee.
        So I just want to say thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
    pulling this all together. Thanks especially to Rriverso, to
    Hudson, and to Nicky, and their handlers, and to each of you
    who vocalized and verbalized on behalf of our canine friends.
        Thank you so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Let me go back to the metrics, because in our briefing here
    we did--certainly one metric is apprehensions of drugs, which
    is probably one of the most successful areas--almost 40,000
    apprehensions last year nationwide. I think it was last year--
    yes, fiscal year 2015. Are there similar--first of all, do we
    have instances in TSA where we have detected bombs? Have we
    thwarted any attacks? Or have we just been very fortunate that
    we have not had those?
        Ms. Hutchinson. Yes, as far as we know, we have not had a
    terrorist come through a checkpoint with an explosive to be
    detected. So to your point, it is hard to measure the
    deterrence factor of having a dog at a checkpoint or anywhere
    else. So that is difficult for us.
        Chairman Johnson. Dr. Otto, can you talk about the
    specialized nature of the different smells, the different
    odors, and what that means from the standpoint of training?
        Dr. Otto. So there are a number of different odors, but the
    concept is all kind of the same on how we are going to train
    them. In our program we train our dogs with foundation work
    where they learn how to search. They do not necessarily learn a
    specific odor. And then depending on their physical
    characteristics and their behavioral characteristics, we may
    put them into different careers.
        So dogs that are searching for humans in disaster settings
    are searching for a really large amount of odor associated with
    that person. And those are dogs that are going to be wide-
    ranging and really looking for odor.
        We also have a medical detection program where we have
    trained dogs to identify the odor associated with ovarian
    cancer in blood samples. That is a drop of blood. It is a very
    minute odor, and the dogs that work in that field are very
    meticulous and very thorough and work in a controlled
    environment.
        So those are kind of the two ends of the spectrum, and then
    identifying the environments that you would want, the passenger
    screening environment is going to be probably more similar to
    our search and rescue environment; whereas, maybe the more
    traditional screening of suitcases we might get a little bit
    closer to what we are dealing with the ovarian cancer
    detection, but usually the amount of odor is still going to be
    much, much greater than what we would see in something like the
    medical detection. Is that what you were asking?
        Chairman Johnson. Yes. Let us also talk about--because we
    talked a little bit about breeding capacity. To me that just
    seems like something we could overcome pretty quickly. There
    seems to be enough demand for these things, and we should know
    how to breed, so it is a matter of just getting the right ones.
        Let us talk about training capacity. Obviously, you have a
    certain approach to training which differs from other centers.
    Do we have a capacity shortage from the standpoint of training?
    And then ongoing training, too, you talked about a team and how
    important it is that we these dogs are trained and the handlers
    actually conduct that training on an ongoing basis, correct?
        Dr. Otto. Well, I can talk about the ongoing training that
    is necessary based on what SWGDOG has recommended as national
    guidelines and what the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) Organization of Scientific Area Committees
    (OSAC) and the Committee on Dogs and Sensors recommends for
    ongoing training, 16 hours a month of ongoing training for the
    canine handler teams. But most of what we are doing, we are not
    really working with those graduate dogs, so I think I probably
    would defer to CBP or TSA to address some of those issues.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Please.
        Mr. Montes. I am sorry, sir. Can you please repeat the
    question?
        Chairman Johnson. Really just talking about the ongoing
    training for the dogs, how the handlers--it is a
    responsibility. That is certainly what I heard from the
    University of Pennsylvania. This is not something you train the
    dog for a couple weeks or a couple months and then they are
    trained. You have to continually update that on a continuous
    basis, so if you can just kind of speak to that.
        Mr. Montes. Absolutely. So we all know ground zero is at
    the training centers. Our canines come in, and they go anywhere
    from a 14-week course to a 12-week to a 10-week course, 7 or 5.
    Depending on the variances of we are going to train our
    handlers, we talk about the team. So the canine itself, it is
    very important when we start the canine training with the
    canine that we determine what capacity that dog is going to be
    working in in the field, and that is based on our initial prior
    selection test.
        Chairman Johnson. Now, let me ask, are those dogs pre-
    trained already and then you are just specifically training
    them for something? Or are you doing the entire training
    yourself?
        Mr. Montes. We do the entire training ourselves. What we
    want to do is we want to identify the canine based on its
    innate drives and capabilities, because all of our operational
    environments are very different. So depending on the
    operational environment, we want to be able to pair that dog in
    a training center to the operational request. For example, if
    you have a small border environment, Naco, Arizona, or you have
    a large border environment, San Isidro, Arizona, we want to
    make sure that we pair that dog in that environment so to have
    a successful working life. And that comes with the training
    that we develop at the training centers, the pairing with that
    handler coming from that environment, and essentially setting
    that dog up for success in the field. That is where it starts,
    at the training center. And then, of course, you have the
    continuing training that goes on with our subject matter
    experts, our instructors in the field. So it is more of a
    lateral handoff which progresses that canine throughout its
    career.
        Chairman Johnson. Ms. Hutchinson, do you have anything to
    add to that?
        Ms. Hutchinson. So it is slightly different on the TSA side
    of the house. So our canines, the explosive detection canines,
    which are all of our teams, are trained in a basic 15-week
    course. The passenger screening canines have an additional 10
    weeks because it is a very different search capability. As you
    saw, it is not a static bag. It is somebody who is moving, and
    it is a person. So they have to see that person as a search
    possibility. And then after we basically imprint all of our
    dogs on the odors, we pair that dog with a handler for 10 to 12
    weeks to figure out how to search people.
        One of the things we are trying to do on the training side
    is to be more efficient and sort of looking at the science with
    our Science & Technology and training on sort of families of
    odors, because it does take a long time to train these dogs
    because it is such a high-stakes business. So how can we look
    at sort of rather than imprinting odor by odor, looking at
    families of odors? So we are trying to compress those timelines
    to be able to deploy dogs faster, but it is a hard job. We have
    to train to that job.
        Chairman Johnson. Director Grover, you were talking about
    team failures. Can you just describe that in greater detail,
    what you are talking about there? Just describe what you are
    talking about.
        Ms. Grover. Well, it would just be an opportunity--it would
    be a circumstance when a canine team missed an explosive aid
    during either the annual certification or as part of TSA's
    cycle assessments where they are really paying great attention
    to all of the PSC teams to ensure that they are performing well
    and enhancing their performance.
        So the last data that GAO reviewed on this did show
    significant variation between the teams at the top-performing
    airports and the lower-performing airports, and that could be
    just because some teams had a bad day or two at the time of the
    testing, or it could be a longer-term issue. The details of the
    failure rates are Sensitive Security Information (SSI), so we
    can share them with your staff but not in a public environment.
    And TSA does have the data so that they can followup on that.
        Chairman Johnson. Dr. Otto, do you have any opinions of why
    you have team failures? Would it be the handlers not doing the
    ongoing training, kind of keeping the dog current and
    themselves current? Could you just kind of speak to that?
        Dr. Otto. I think there are a number of different things
    that can influence it. What we looked at is, when are our dogs
    at their peak, when are they doing best? I think, this is
    another opportunity where we can help the dogs to do their jobs
    without as much handler influence. The more independent that
    the dogs are, the less chance of maybe the handler having a bad
    day, the dog having a bad day, either one of them; that we can
    really help that move forward.
        I do think that there are a combination of environmental
    aspects that are going to affect it, but we definitely know in
    these teams that there is an interaction between the handler
    and the dog. So, paying attention to that.
        We have also looked at some of the medical aspects that may
    affect a dog's ability to detect odor, and happily, we do not
    have obvious problems in a lot of the medications that we have
    been testing. But there are some medications that can actually
    decrease the odor detection ability of a dog.
        Chairman Johnson. You are saying medications the dogs
    might----
        Ms. Otto. Dogs' medications.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. And are there different breeds that
    are better at different things?
        Ms. Otto. I think there are different personalities within
    breeds that are better at different things. Again, if we go to
    our cancer detection, which is a very specialized area, we have
    a German Shepherd, a Labrador, and a Springer Spaniel. And in
    our search and rescue dogs, we have a spectrum of breeds as
    well, and it is so much more the personality within the breed.
    I think when we are really selecting these dogs that have the
    genetic capacity for odor detection, it is then how does that
    dog's personality interact with its genetics.
        Chairman Johnson. Ms. Grover, you were talking about the
    added value of the specialized training for the passenger
    screening versus just conventional training. The bottom line,
    there is going to have to be some specialized training because
    they are dealing with passengers as opposed to down the bowels
    of the airport just going through bags, correct?
        Ms. Grover. Probably, yes. But GAO is an evidence-based
    organization, and so we would always want to make sure that TSA
    has good evidence to support that all of these additional weeks
    of training are necessary to get the outcomes. No need to spend
    the taxpayer dollars----
        Chairman Johnson. And we appreciate that, trust me.
        Ms. Grover. Right--unless it is necessary. And that data is
    not all in place yet.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Being an accountant, I like evidence
    and I like metrics.
        Let me just close it out to both TSA and CBP. I really do
    want somebody within your organization providing written
    responses to questions for the record about, what is the
    desired level of teams here. My guess is you would all agree
    that they can be very effective, correct? And we really do need
    to take a hard look at--I do not want to be penny-wise and
    pound-foolish here. Just one instance of somebody getting
    through could be pretty harmful to our economy. So what I see,
    the 1,000 canine units within TSA, the 1,400--it costs money,
    but it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars versus the
    potential harm of a problem here. So I really do want to get a
    pretty good sense of how effective these are. What is the total
    cost? And what is the desired level? Because I would like to be
    supportive of this.
        Let me just kind of close out the hearing, going down the
    line, if you have a final comment before we end the hearing. We
    will start with you, Ms. Hutchinson.
        Ms. Hutchinson. Thank you for your strong support of our
    program. As you can see, they are very effective. We saw it
    here this morning. I know we need more across the system. We
    will get you that answer. We are looking at that as an
    organization.
        One thing we did not talk about which I think is a huge
    benefit for canines is just the ability to evolve them with the
    threat. So we can train them very quickly as new threats
    emerge, and we can also deploy them differently, so as the
    threat changes to insider threat, we can move them to the back
    side of the airport very quickly. So it is a very portable
    asset for us as well, and I think that is significant for our
    mission.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Montes.
        Mr. Montes. Once again, thank you as well. I want to point
    out one significant point. As we continue to evolve our CBP
    Canine Training Program, one of the emphasis is the type of
    dogs that we are selecting and the process that we have been
    able to refine. I will give you the statistical number because
    you said you liked metrics.
        In fiscal year 2015, through our vendors, through our
    contracts, through our open source, 428 dogs were presented to
    us for possible selection of entering our service. Through our
    very rigorous performance and medical selection, we have only
    selected 278 of those. That is a 64-percent selection. So the
    dogs--there are an abundance of canines out there, but we are
    looking for a particular type of canine for our mission.
        Now, of those 270, currently we have 208 that have
    completed training. We have 51 that are in training. And only
    11 of those dogs were not able to meet our performance
    standards. And we talk about lexicon as far as failure. That is
    what we would consider failures.
        So as it is right now, the CBP canine program, the return
    on investment of taxpayer dollars, we are at a 95-percent
    success rate of dogs that walk through our door and our
    training that we are able to train, certify, and create a
    working dog team for the CBP operational components to enforce
    and secure our borders.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Montes. Director Grover.
        Ms. Grover. Yes, sir. TSA does have an effective program
    here, and they have made great strides in using the metrics
    that they need to oversee their program, and we look forward to
    working with them to address these final issues remaining.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Otto.
        Dr. Otto. I think that we all agree that the dogs do give
    us a huge advantage, and I think continuing in a collaborative
    research environment so that we can answer some of these
    questions, that we can provide those metrics. And I agree that
    the dogs are so flexible that even if a machine could detect
    some odor, when we look at the environments that they are
    working in and things that change, that whole ability for the
    dogs to problem-solve and reason really puts them kind of leaps
    and bounds ahead of any kind of machine-type approach to this
    problem.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. I want to thank you all for your time
    and your testimony. I want to thank the handlers, the dogs. I
    know Senator Carper named them. He did not mention Jerry, so
    thanks to Jerry for being just cute and soft. [Laughter.]
        Again, thank you all. I really do appreciate it.
        With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
    until March 18 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
    questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]