[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INNOVATIONS IN SECURITY: EXAMINING THE USE OF CANINES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-49
(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)
__________
Serial No. 115-31
(Committee on Homeland Security)
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-507 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Blake Farenthold, Texas Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Ron DeSantis, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Mark Walker, North Carolina Val Butler Demings, Florida
Rod Blum, Iowa Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Jimmy Gomez,California
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna General Counsel
Christina Aizcorbe, Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee Staff
Director
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs
Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Val Butler Demings, Florida,
Chair Ranking Minority Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Mark DeSaulnier, California
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Mark Walker, North Carolina (Vacancy)
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
John Katko, New York Filemon Vela, Texas
Will Hurd, Texas Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Martha McSally, Arizona Kathleen M. Rice, New York
John Ratcliffe, Texas J. Luis Correa, California
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York Val Butler Demings, Florida
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ron Estes, Kansas
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Steven S. Giaier, Deputy General Counsel
Krista P. Harvey, Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee
Staff Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY
John Katko, New York, Chairman
Mike Rogers, Alabama Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Clay Higgins, Louisiana William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Ron Estes, Kansas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 3, 2017.................................. 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Sheila Goffe, Vice President, Government Relations, American
Kennel Club
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Lieutenant Scott R. Smith, Orlando Police Department, Orlando,
Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
Cynthia M. Otto, DVM, Ph.D., Executive Director, Penn Vet Working
Dog Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Pennsylvania
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
APPENDIX
Letter of September 29, 2017, from the Transportation Security
Administration submitted by Ms. Demings........................ 56
Response from Ms. Goffe, American Kennel Club, to Questions for
the Record..................................................... 59
Response from Dr. Otto, Penn Vet Working Dog Center, to Questions
for the Record................................................. 61
INNOVATIONS IN SECURITY: EXAMINING THE USE OF CANINES
----------
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, joint with
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security,
Committee on Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary J. Palmer
[chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Palmer, Katko, Grothman, Rogers,
Higgins, Estes, Demings, Watson Coleman, DeSaulnier, and
Keating.
Mr. Palmer. The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security of the
Committee on Homeland Security will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
clarify a recess at any time.
Before I begin my opening remarks, I would like to
recognize the United States Capitol Police Canine Technician
Jason Conlon and his four-legged partner, Jax. Thank you for
coming. And Jax is pretty popular in this hearing.
I thank you both for attending today's hearing. I think I
speak for all of my colleagues here today when I say thank you
for all you do to protect the complex and this Nation. And
having been one of the Republican members on the baseball field
that morning, I know the willingness of the Capitol Police to
pay the ultimate sacrifice for us. And that is literally what
Officers Griner and Bailey did. They put themselves in harm's
way for us, and we are all profoundly grateful for the service
of our Capitol Police.
Technician Conlon and Jax are an important reminder that
canines are an integral part of our national security framework
and serve in all levels of our government. From the United
States Capitol to local municipalities, canine teams are
working to save lives every single day. Dogs like Jax provide
unmatched capabilities to secure our safety, including the
detection of explosives, narcotics, concealed humans, currency,
firearms, electronics, and chemicals, and are also used in
search-and-rescue missions. Simply put, canines are an
invaluable asset to our country.
Over recent years, international demand for canines has
increased dramatically. Experts report that this heightened
demand has led to a shortage of suitable canines, making it
difficult for the United States Government to obtain the
working dogs it needs.
TSA has reported that the Federal Government is working to
improve and expand relationships with domestic vendors. This is
a step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done.
Efforts to obtain more dogs have reportedly been slow to
materialize. In a May 18, 2017, hearing, TSA's Threat
Assessment Division Director Melanie Harvey testified that TSA
is working very closely with domestic vendors to build up the
canine supply but has not identified a large enough supply to
domestically do that.
Industry professionals and domestic vendors have also
reported difficulties in working with the government's canine
procurement programs, citing challenges in getting their dogs
accepted for work.
We are hoping today's hearing will serve as a starting
point toward resolving those challenges. My primary hope for
this hearing is that it will help us evaluate how we can
increase the use of canines in areas that are clearly
vulnerable to attack, including public areas of our airports,
train stations, as well as other areas with high concentrations
of people. To that end, we have a diverse panel of
professionals today who will present information and ideas
about how our government uses canines. And I look forward to
hearing what they have to say.
We must ensure that government agencies are able to
purchase qualified canines so that they can meet their critical
national security missions.
I thank Chairman Katko for his leadership and partnership
on this issue. I thank Ranking Member Demings. I have had
conversations, extensive conversations, with both of them that
really led to this hearing. And I am very grateful for the work
that they put in on this.
Clearly, this is an area that we can all agree deserves our
attention and support.
I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs. Demings, for her opening
statement.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for joining us here today.
Before we begin, I do want to take just a moment to
acknowledge the tragedy that occurred in Las Vegas. I imagine
that we all have reflected on what happened. And as a former
chief of police, I can tell you I have had many sleepless
nights wondering what I could do to keep my community safe, let
alone trying to understand what would lead somebody to commit
such an unspeakable act.
When President John F. Kennedy was speaking of foreign
threats, I believe his words go to the heart of what each first
responder holds within to do their own work. I quote him: We
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship to keep
America safe.
With that, I turn back to the subject for which we are here
today.
On this day, we have the opportunity to discuss the crucial
role that canine security plays in protecting our local
airports, transportation hubs, sports arenas, stadiums, and
other large venues. Prior to serving as Orlando's police chief,
I served as commander of the Special Operations Division where
I had the honor of managing our canine operation.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that
more canine security is needed. I agree. Unfortunately, the
President's budget proposal would cut State and local programs.
Under the budget proposal, TSA's Visible Intermodal Prevention
and Response Teams, which patrol public spaces in airports,
train and bus stations, would be eliminated.
Under the budget proposal, the Law Enforcement Officer
Reimbursement Program, which provides support to local airports
by placing local law enforcement teams alongside TSA checkpoint
officers, would be gutted. This would cut $45 million in
funding that reimburses local police departments for canine
security at more than 300 local airports. I believe such cuts
would put our State and local security forces in jeopardy.
Our Nation's security is my top priority and should be
Congress' number one priority. Congress must stand with State
and local police.
And with that, I again thank our chairman for this
opportunity and thank our witnesses for sharing their testimony
today. And I look forward to this very important discussion.
Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. I now recognize the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security, Mr.
Katko, for his opening statement.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I proceed, I do want to acknowledge the tragedy in
Las Vegas.
As a Federal organized crime prosecutor for 20 years, I
made it my life's mission to take dangerous weapons out of the
hands of dangerous people. But this gentleman points up a
specifically difficult person to detect, and we got to--we have
to learn how to do better to detect people like that that have
gone off the grid, so to speak.
So, with that, I will talk to a little happier subject, and
that is dogs. My dog, Sadie, is happy I am here today. I told,
before I came down, my black lab, that I would be testifying--I
would be asking questions of all of you, and she said to say
hello.
Canines are an essential asset to our national security.
Due to their intelligence, superior sense of smell, and
versatility, canines provide an unparalleled service to law
enforcement. When canines' natural abilities are supplemented
by selective breeding, training, and cutting-edge developments
in science, they became one of the most effective security
tools for public safety. While the utility of one certain
technology over another does ebb and flow based on how
terrorists seek to do harm, the security benefits of canines
will always been a crucial element to keeping Americans safe.
And I want to commend my colleague to my left here, Mr. Rogers,
who has been championing this cause for many years, at least
since I have been in Congress the last 3 years, and I know long
before that as well.
The concept of a working dog is not unfamiliar to most
Americans. They are a viable presence in airports, train
stations, and other public areas. From my experience as
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on
Transportation and Protective Security, I have seen firsthand
the data proving the security effectiveness of canines in
mitigating the rapidly evolving threat landscape facing
America's transportation systems. Oftentimes, canines present
the most effective and efficient means of detecting new
threats--again, I stress effective and efficient--as they can
be retrained and deployed as new threat streams and terrorist
tactics emerge. Canines are utilized in a variety of different
settings and roles for the detection of people, narcotics, and
explosives, and weapons of mass destruction, amongst many other
items.
As we strive to be proactive in mitigating threats to the
traveling public in transit hubs, airports, and other venues,
canines are an essential component of our ability to enhance
security. Because of their versatility and reliability, canines
are increasingly sought after by Federal, State, local, and
Tribal agencies, as well as private stakeholders and foreign
governments. This spike in demand for canines both domestically
and internationally far outstrips our current ability to
produce an adequate supply of dogs. The United States is
competing with many other nations to procure canines that meet
rigorous standards. And a shortage of quality dogs presents an
impending security risk. In an era of heightened terrorist
activities, it is critical that the domestic working canine
industry has a robust development and training pipeline that
feeds into a seamless procurement process.
The purpose of today's hearing is to learn more about the
challenges that the canine industry faces. We also want to
ascertain how we can better develop a strategy and more
reliable infrastructure for domestic breeders and training
facilities. Lastly, we want to learn how the United States
Government can better communicate its needs with its private
sector canine partners to help facilitate future growth of this
essential security asset. A strong domestic breeding industry
not only makes all of us safer but creates new jobs and
opportunities in our communities. I think it would be great if
we got to a point where we stopped importing dogs from Belgium
and wherever else and had the programs here and maybe got it to
such point where we are exporting them around the world because
the quality is that good.
However, we have to make our government--we have to make
sure our government is doing everything it can to present a
strategic and comprehensive vision for its canine needs and
that this vision is effectively communicated to the industry in
order to foster necessary growth.
We must also ensure that, with the rapid increase in demand
for canines, we are ensuring the quality of our security
standards and procuring only the most highly trained canines.
We must also ensure that we are properly incentivizing breeders
and trainers to meet the demand for canines today and far into
the future.
Ms. Goffe, Lieutenant Smith, and Dr. Otto, I encourage all
of you today to be candid and frank in your testimony. We
convene this hearing in order to hear directly from each of you
about how Congress can better support this critical layer of
our national security. We all share the same goals, and we all
want to better understand what obstacles currently exist that
may prevent the growth of our domestic canine industry. Canines
are an invaluable safety and security asset. And the need for
more canines will only continue to grow.
I would like to thank my colleagues Chairman Palmer,
Ranking Member Demings, and Ranking Member Watson Coleman for
joining me in calling for this hearing today.
Security is not a partisan issue. That is one of the things
we truly enjoy about Homeland Security is that it is not a
partisan issue. And we must work together in a bipartisan
fashion to advance important issues that affect the safety and
security of all Americans.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security,
Mrs. Watson Coleman, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the members of both subcommittees for
convening this hearing and to the witnesses for being here
today.
I would to begin by acknowledging Sunday's horrific mass
shooting in Las Vegas as well. Our thoughts and our prayers are
with the victims, their families, and their loved ones. I also
want to thank the law enforcement officers and first responders
who bravely rushed to the scene and attended to the victims.
While we are still learning the details of this tragic
event, it is a sobering reminder of the harm a single actor can
cause when he has violent intent and access to deadly weapons.
Sunday's attack comes a little more than a year after the
Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Until Sunday, the Pulse
attack was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American
history.
Lieutenant Smith, I understand you were part of the law
enforcement response to that shooting, and I thank you for your
service.
While it may not be the stated topic of this hearing,
considering recent events and the renewed urgency to take up
comprehensive gun safety reform, Lieutenant Smith, I hope that
we can hear from you today on some of the lessons you learned
from that tragic experience and some of the suggestions you
have for my colleagues here in Congress on what we can do to
address this epidemic of gun violence.
While we may never know what drove the killer to
indiscriminately fire upon concertgoers, what is undeniable is
that it terrorized innocent law-abiding citizens. Congress has
an obligation to pass commonsense gun control reforms to reduce
the lethality of future attacks.
As a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation
and Protective Service, I am all too familiar with the diverse
security threats our Nation faces. While this shooting shows
that any large gathering can be targeted for attack, terrorists
continue to place particular importance an attacking
transportation systems. Soft targets, such as subways, mass
transit stations, and public airport areas, have been targeted
in the United States and abroad. Securing these critical
transportation systems requires a layered risk-based approach.
While no one technology or solution can provide unbeatable
scrutiny--security, canines have proven to be one of the most
effective tools for securing large venues open to the public.
Under the Obama administration, the TSA more than doubled
the size of its canine program, growing from the number of
canine teams from 518 in 2008 to 1,047 in 2017.
At my home airport of Newark Liberty International Airport,
TSA now deploys 13 canines to support their operations. TSA
provides an additional 20 canines to the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey for deployment at all of its transportation
systems.
Although I have been pleased by the continued investment in
canines, I must note that they have been deployed
disproportionally to securing aviation compared to other
transportation sectors. TSA devotes more attention and
resources to aviation than surface transportation in general.
Many of the TSA's technology that are in use at airport
security checkpoints cannot be effectively integrated into
bustling train stations and other active surface transportation
venues.
However, canines are mobile and able to detect explosives
both on persons and in baggage. They work well in crowds, and
they can be trained to detect evolving threats. There is also
some evidence that they serve as a deterrent to those who may
be planning an attack. TSA must devote more of its resources to
securing surface transportation systems, particularly in light
of AQAP's publication of its latest issue of Inspire Magazine
last August which encouraged and provided instructions for
attacks against U.S. railways. Ensuring that there are
dedicated canine resources available to help secure high-risk
surface transportation would be a perfect place to start.
To that end, I will be introducing a bill to revamp and
invest in surface transportation security programs in the near
future, and I hope my colleagues would give it their support.
Again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today,
and I look forward to learning more about the capabilities and
the contributions of canines to our national security.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlewoman.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. Ms. Sheila Goffe,
vice president of government relations for the American Kennel
Club; Lieutenant Scott Smith of the Orlando, Florida, Police
Department; and Dr. Cynthia Otto, executive director of the
Penn Vet Working Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania
School of Veterinary Medicine.
Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to Oversight Committee rules, all witnesses will
be sworn in before they testify.
Please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear to--or affirm that the testimony you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you.
The record will reflect all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be
made part of the record. As a reminder, turn on your
microphones when you are testifying. The clock in front of you
shows your remaining time for giving your testimony. The light
will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when
your time is up. And then the gavel will remind you that the
light turned red.
I would like to recognize the witnesses for the testimony.
Ms. Goffe, if you would.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF SHEILA GOFFE
Ms. Goffe. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Chairman Katko,
Ranking Members Demings and Watson Coleman, and other
distinguished guests. It's a pleasure to be here in Washington
today. And on behalf of the American Kennel Club, I thank you
for the opportunity to share with you some of our concerns and
experiences with respect to the need, demand for, and use of
military working dogs, particularly explosive detection dogs,
and ways that improving the domestic sourcing of detection dogs
can help protect our national security.
The American Kennel Club was founded in 1884 by a group of
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts who wished to record and preserve
the bloodlines of their working dogs and advance the
capabilities for future generations. Today, more than 130 years
later, the AKC remains dedicated to protecting and advancing
the unique capabilities of purpose-bred dogs as part of our
mission of promoting purebred dogs and thoughtful, purposeful
breeding for type and function.
The AKC is a not-for-profit organization and national club
of more than 5,000 member and affiliated clubs around the
country. In 2016, AKC sanctioned 22,000 dog-related events
throughout the country in disciplines ranging from confirmation
dogs shows to field trials, agility, and obedience.
Earlier this year, we established a competitive sport based
on scent detection. AKC is also the largest all-breed registry
in the world. We are dedicated to advocating for the purebred
dog as a working and family companion, advocating for canine
health and well-being, advancing the study and breeding of
purebred dogs, and promoting responsible dog ownership.
We have a long history of helping the government with
military working dog programs. In World War II, some 17,000 AKC
registered dogs served in the Dogs for Defense Program. In the
last decade, AKC board member Carmen Battaglia has been an
advisor to the TSA breeding program at Lackland Air Force Base
providing expertise on breeding strategies and puppy-raising
protocols, such as early neurological stimulation to improve
long-term outcomes for successful military working dogs.
Over the course of this interaction, AKC was asked how we
might be able to assist the development and procurement of
quality domestically bred dogs suitable for training as
military working dogs. The AKC does not sell dogs nor do we
seek to become a government contractor. The AKC brings a
breadth of knowledge, a large network of breeders, and the
expertise and ability to facilitate among a range of
stakeholders. We see our role as a facilitator who can provide
expertise and information to breeders to bring them together
with cutting-edge research in agencies that need very specific
types of dogs that can succeed as military working dogs.
As mentioned earlier, military working dogs play a critical
role in our national security. According to sources within and
outside the Federal Government, 80 to 90 percent of the dogs
purchased by the Homeland Security and Department of Defense
come from foreign sources. As Americans, we should be concerned
that an extraordinarily high percentage of the dogs that serve
on the front lines of protecting the public, our public
institutions, and our national security are obtained from
foreign sources.
About a year ago, AKC formed a team to gather information
about American use and procurement of explosive detection dogs,
the challenges faced in having enough fully trained deployable
dogs to meet demand, and how changes in breeding and
procurement might improve outcomes. We have met with officials
at the Department of Defense, the TSA, private vendors,
government and private contractors, academia, and law
enforcement. We found a range of concerns regarding an
overreliance on foreign bred and procured dogs, a lack of
transparency and consistency in the selection process for
untrained, or green, dogs. We found high failure rates among
both foreign and domestic dogs and procurement processes that
intimidated potential suppliers and could favor foreign dogs
over domestically bred dogs. We also heard concerns that
outcomes from scientific research on improving performance and
efficiency within our training programs were not being
implemented consistently.
In March, AKC hosted the U.S. Dog Detection Conference in
Raleigh, North Carolina. The conference assembled key
stakeholders from government, academia, the private sector to
discuss ways that AKC could provide dogs to protect the safety
and security of the United States and advance the concept of a
working dog center of excellence.
We plan to make this conference an annual event and would
like to extend an invitation to the conference and to members
of the House Homeland Security Oversight and Government Reform
Committees and the appropriate staff to attend our next
conference.
At this conference, and I note Dr. Cindy Otto will also
speak about this, we looked at a number of challenges and a
number of opportunities. We looked at ways that we could come
together to provide the expertise, the knowledge, the training,
the cutting-edge science all together as part of a center for
canine excellence for working dogs. We plan to continue to work
towards that future.
And I would be very happy to answer any questions you might
have about the specifics of the plans to bring together this
expertise and the ways that we would like to be able to assist
in this process.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Goffe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes Lieutenant Smith for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT SCOTT R. SMITH
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Palmer.
And I would also like to thank the members of the
subcommittees for inviting me here today, and specifically
Ranking Member Demings. The connection is not lost on me, why I
am sitting here in front of you.
My name is Scott Smith. I'm a lieutenant with the Orlando
Police Department. I have been in law enforcement for 25 years,
all of which have been done in Orlando, Florida.
Throughout the years, I have had an opportunity to hold a
variety of jobs within our agency. But by far, the most
rewarding and the most challenging has been supervising the
canine unit. I would like to take the next couple of minutes to
explain to you our uses of canine in Orlando and also explain a
couple of unique security concerns in the central Florida
region and how we address those with the canines.
The Orlando Police Department utilizes 14 full-service
canines in their day-to-day operations. These full-service
canines are primarily used to support patrol personnel in
search and apprehension of criminals. They are trained and
tested in disciplines such as area searches, building searches,
tracking, and apprehension. In addition to the above functions,
each of these canines also possess a secondary specialty and
are trained in either narcotics detection or explosive
detection.
Over the years, as the paradigm has shifted from a war on
drugs to a war on terror, so too is our focus on secondary
specialties. In the early years of our program, almost all of
our canines were trained on narcotics detection. Now, in the
aftermath of such events as the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, the Manchester Arena bombing, Brussels Airport, and
the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, France, that used
numerous suicide vests, the Orlando Police Department Canine
Unit concentrates heavily on the explosive detection specialty.
In addition to the 14 full-service canines that I mentioned
above, the Orlando Police Department also utilizes four single-
purpose explosive detection dogs. These four canines are only
trained on explosive odor and were specifically purchased to
bolster the security measures at Orlando International Airport.
They maintain a visible presence throughout the airport and
actively sweep passengers in common landside areas, such as
ticketing, baggage claim, and the food and retail areas.
As has been demonstrated in past terror events, whether
it's ISIS or a lone extremist, mass transit facilities such as
an international airport are a favorite target. It can shut
down an entire transit system as well as ensure a large amount
of casualties.
Due to the unique tourism industry of central Florida,
Orlando International Airport has continued to grow and has set
daily passenger records throughout 2017. In addition, the
Orlando International Airport is currently in phase 1 of a
brandnew international terminal scheduled to open in 2020. With
the expansion of the airport and the increased passenger
numbers it will bring, the demand for security screenings will
only increase. Local and Federal agencies will be forced to
grow in order to support these security demands. By utilizing
canine assets, agencies can offset manpower demands and screen
a wide number of people faster.
In addition to our international airport, central Florida
is home to several of the top tourist destinations in the
world. For the past 3 years, the central Florida region has
surpassed its tourist numbers from 62 million in 2014 to 68
million in 2016. On a daily basis, local law enforcement canine
teams are patrolling theme parks such as Walt Disney World,
Universal Studios, and Sea World. And at times, a particular
theme park can register as many as a quarter of a million
guests in their parks at one time.
Due to these numbers, some of these theme parks even
supplement the law enforcement explosive detection teams with
their own supply of explosive detection canines. And although
these personnel are not sworn law enforcement, it enables the
theme parks to show a greater presence and screen a greater
number of visitors at their turnstiles.
On top of the concentration of theme parks in central
Florida, Orlando is also a host to a number of collegiate and
professional athletic events. Our explosive detection dogs
sweep 41 home games for the Orlando Magic, 19 home games for
Orlando City Soccer, 12 for Orlando Pride, plus 3 NCAA Bowl
games. Orlando is also currently the host city for the NFL Pro
Bowl.
Attendance at these games can range from 5,000 to 70,000.
Numbers like those seen at theme parks and sporting events are
often too tempting to ignore for an extremist or an individual.
The visible presence and active screening of canine teams at
choke points at these venues is an invaluable deterrence to the
safety of the visitors.
Lastly, as everyone knows, on June 12, 2016, Orlando fell
victim to the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
A self-radicalized extremist murdered 49 victims at a small
nightclub just outside downtown Orlando.
The terrorists boldly made claims of possessing suicide
vests as well as having a car bomb parked outside. Several
canine teams from different agencies across central Florida
responded to that event. The suspect's car was swept, as well
as key areas around night--around the nightclub, such as
command posts, staging areas, and--sorry--excuse me--and
staging areas. Ultimately, his claims of explosives proved to
be false. But the use of responding canine teams helped
alleviate the concerns of first responders about secondary
devices and allowed them to concentrate on the terrorist
himself.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the ever-changing
tactics used by extremist groups who frequently seek out soft
targets with large number of victims. The threat to these
targets can be greatly mitigated by the use of explosive
detection canines. The simple site of a canine vehicle or a
canine team patrolling the choke point can deter even the most
dedicated terrorist if they believe they will be detected
before they can cause the greatest amount of damage. Those who
seek to harm us need to know we will use the best assets
available to prevent their attacks and preserve life.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for the
opportunity to speak in front of you, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. I thank for the gentleman for his testimony.
The chair recognizes Dr. Otto for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. OTTO, DVM, PH.D.
Dr. Otto. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings, Chairman
Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and members of the
subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The Penn Vet Working Dog Center is the Nation's premiere
research and educational facility dedicated to harnessing the
unique strengths of our canine partners and producing an elite
group of scent detection dogs for public health and safety.
The Working Dog Center is a living laboratory where we
study and test strategies to optimize canine health and
performance from 8 weeks of age through career entry. Early
training provides a positive learning environment and mitigates
problems. This, combined with placing dogs in their chosen
careers, ranging from explosive detection to cancer detection,
has resulted in 93 percent of our dogs graduating into
detection careers.
Dogs are a force multiplier. Dogs are diverse in their
skills. And applications in which dogs support national
security directly and indirectly are constantly expanding. The
most obvious direct applications are the explosive detection
canine and the law enforcement canine. Many of the other jobs,
such as narcotics detection, agriculture, search and rescue,
human remains detection, and even conservation dogs indirectly
support national security. The demand for working dogs in other
fields is also great.
Dogs that could serve in national security careers may
instead be sold to organizations or individuals that utilize
dogs for other detection roles, hunting, or sport. Overall,
there is a great and increasing demand for dogs with the
health, behaviors, and skills necessary for a wide array of
working careers, and currently, there is no comprehensive plan
to increase the supply of these invaluable canines or conduct
the research to enhance their success.
With a high demand for dogs, one of the challenges faced is
the affordable procurement of healthy dogs capable of
performing the tasks required. In seeking a solution, we must
consider the cost of the dogs and the source of the dogs.
There are several components that contribute to the cost of
a dog. The first is in identifying dogs for potential purchase.
The purchase price of both successful dogs and those that
eventually fail must also be tracked. Once a dog is acquired,
the expensive training, medical care, housing, transportation,
and working lifespan of the dog should be included. Finally,
one of the biggest factors in the cost of the working dog is
the cost of the human partner.
In summary, the initial price of the dog is a small
fraction of the total cost of employing a detection canine.
Wise choices on the health and training of the dogs and
selection of the handler can help to reduce the lifetime costs
of dogs.
The main options for sourcing dogs are imports, domestic
breeders, shelter dogs, or a dedicated breeding program.
Traditionally, the majority of dogs for the U.S. military and
domestic law enforcement agencies have been imported.
Challenges with imports stem from a lack of control over
genetics, health, environment, and availability. The current
challenge with relying on domestic breeders is production of
top hunting dogs is typically their primary goal, thus cost and
selection criteria often don't align with government needs.
A shelter model is emotionally appealing but limited by
cost and availability of appropriate dogs, making it unsuitable
as a primary source of dogs.
A dedicated breeding program would allow for control of
genetics, environment, and training, and potentially meet the
demands for dogs in a variety of careers. Development of a
breeding cooperative would allow breeders and organizations to
sell dogs that meet the health, behavioral, and genetic
requirements. For this program to be effective, additional and
ongoing research will be necessary.
In conclusion, to improve the availability and success of
working dogs, supporting our national security in an efficient
and cost-effective manner, sound scientific principles must be
applied to all aspects of dog selection, training, and
deployment. To achieve the full potential, a federally hosted
collaboration between academic institutions, government
agencies, organizations, breeders, and industry to create a
national detection dog center of excellence is critical. The
center of excellence would research, validate, and disseminate
best practices to advance the scientific approach to dog
selection, care, and training.
Furthermore, to address the impending crisis of detection
dog availability, a new cooperative model of detection dog
breeding, early training, and distribution must be critically
evaluated. Included in the documents is a white paper
describing a cooperative breeding program that we presented at
the AKC summit last March.
We thank you for the opportunity to present and welcome
your questions and comments.
[Prepared statement of Dr. Otto follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Katko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goffe, when I was--when you were speaking, you reminded
me of one of my early jobs as a young teenager working at AKC
events in the central New York area. I was excited to go work
with dogs until I got there and found out what the job was.
Wearing a white coat and a large shovel and a big bucket, you
can guess what I had to do all day every day. But it was--it's
an early exposure to AKC and the professionalism of the
organization. And I am impressed with that.
Dr. Otto, your testimony was excellent, and it was very
helpful, because we do need a blueprint. And I think we all
agree that increasing the use of canines in law enforcement and
antiterror efforts is preferable over fancy new machines that
rarely work as advertised. And they are more pliable, more able
to adapt, and cost-effective as well. So I don't think there is
an argument about that.
The question is, why aren't we getting there? And you both
touched on it. But I think one of the big things that I'm
concerned with is some of the bottlenecks and some of the
inconsistencies and some of the sheer incompetence in the
procurement process. We see that again and again in Homeland
Security and other areas. But a procurement process with
respect to the dogs provides a disincentive for breeders to get
into this field. So we got to fix that. And I'd like to hear
from you about that. And then if there's anything you'd like to
drill down on with respect to your testimony, Dr. Otto, I'd
like to hear that.
So, Ms. Goffe, if you want to expound on the procurement
process for me, first, that'd be helpful.
Ms. Goffe. Absolutely. Thank you.
To start with, for the procurement process, we have been
looking at the opportunity to acquaint and bring many of the
breeders in our network into this process. One of the issues
that we've had is severalfold. One, we have many, many small
breeders throughout the country who provide the types of dogs
that would potentially be ideal for this process. But they
don't breed a lot of dogs. They do breed high-quality dogs. So
they don't necessarily have the resources. They can be
intimidated in some cases by the government contracting
process.
As you know, the government contracting process has
historically looked for large quantities of dogs. And one of
the ways that we think we can help address this problem is to
make some changes in the processing--or the contract process--
program so that small breeders potentially working together can
actually provide dogs that are needed--the type of dogs that
are needed.
Another comment that we heard was from some vendors around
the country who had mentioned that, in order to scale up, to
develop the types of dogs with the health protocols, you know,
the scientific background, looking at the genetics of the dog,
looking at the pedigrees of the dog, making sure that these
dogs were healthy physically and mentally able to stand up to
the rigors of day on, day off in various types of conditions
out there sniffing for explosives, that they needed a larger
facility, a strong breeding program. Unfortunately, what they
found was that small business set-asides got in the way of
their ability to do that. When they expanded to a certain level
to have the expertise that they needed to scale up, if you
will, they were no longer a small business.
That has also brought forward the question of when you
consider that detection canines are a critical national
security resource, should they potentially be identified under
a different NAICS code? Currently, they are identified as live
animals, which would be the same as any other animal in
acquisition processes. But these animals are different. They
are a key part of national security so that the people who are
providing them very well may need to have a different level of
category for what--costs to the small business.
Mr. Katko. Ms. Goffe, just to follow up, and then, Dr.
Otto, I think I'll have to ask for your response in writing, if
you would, because I'm going to run out of time if it is not
covered later in the hearing.
Just a question for you, Ms. Goffe, to follow up what you
were saying. Do you find that different agencies have different
standards, and does that contribute to the problem?
Ms. Goffe. We have--yeah. We have interviewed a number of
people, and we have found that there have been--has been a lot
of inconsistency, actually within and across agencies. There
has been some frustration among people who would like to
provide dogs that they have bred, provided the dogs, gone down,
in many cases, to Lackland or somewhere where the dogs would be
evaluated. And they have not had a consistent testing
experience. The concerns have involved complaints that the
protocols used were not realistic to the needs of what that dog
would actually be expected to do on a day-to-day basis. We have
also heard that they were rejected without a full explanation.
And part of the concern--we understand--you know, not all dogs
are going to make it. These are very, very specialized dogs.
But we think to advance the knowledge and the learning and our
ability to really have good detection dogs, we're going to want
to have feedback from the Federal agencies so we can work
together, make sure that our breeders know exactly what it is
that is required in what is considered to be an untrained dog.
So we're not talking about high-level security, high-level
training. We're talking about basic training for these dogs,
just socialization, environmental stability, the mental and
physical capabilities to do what they need to do on a daily
basis. And we are hearing that the evaluations have been
inconsistent.
It is true that some of this is subjective. You've heard
the old comment that, if you have three trainers in a room, two
of them will agree that the other one is doing something wrong.
But from the perspective of science and national security, we
think that part of what a center for excellence can do is to
establish standards that are a baseline to every dog, every
green dog should be able to accomplish to make it to that first
level of being accepted into a training program, and then you
can carry on with additional training.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Ms. Goffe.
I have many other questions, but my time has expired. So I
yield back.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentlelady
from Florida, Mrs. Demings, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, to our witnesses, thank you all for being here.
Lieutenant Smith, it's good to see you again, and I will
start with you.
Could you please again for us just talk about the critical
role that canines play in the safety of the traveling public?
And then if you would also talk a bit about where the Orlando
Police Department procures its canines and if you've seen any
difference between U.S.--dogs from the U.S. versus dogs from
other places, like Europe.
Mr. Smith. Yes, ma'am.
As far as our use in Orlando, like I had just--in my
opening statement, the Orlando International Airport, we just
procured those four single-purpose dogs. So that's a new
program from us, and that--I know there's a trademark here
somewhere, but it's--Vapor Wake terminology is what those dogs
were. So that's new training, new technique.
The other 14 dogs that I talked about, they are used
throughout the city in different venues to include those arenas
or sporting complexes. And in downtown Orlando, you obviously
know the Dr. Phillips Center, Performing Arts Center, a lot of
the vigils that we have or the large, you know, runs or Lake
Eola-type thing, Fourth of July celebrations, anywhere that's
going to draw thousands of people, we will use those dogs in a
pre-sweep. And I think that's important. People walk by--it's
same as Jax over here. Everybody walks in, and they recognize
the canine. They see it right away. I think they see, you know,
the uniform if it says ``canine'' on there. And I addressed it
earlier about a vehicle--when you park a vehicle in front of
some place, like an airport terminal or something like that,
and it has ``canine'' in red, that's a deterrent. You know,
whether or not that canine is right there, as somebody drives
up and they see that, they're going to think twice, whether
it's is a pre-surveillance thing, an intelligence-gathering
thing. You know, unfortunately, it will only displace it. It
may not prevent it entirely. But when they see it, they may
pick something else besides the large-scale mass-casualty
place.
The other part of your question was?
Mrs. Demings. Procurement.
Mr. Smith. Procurement.
For our full-service dogs, we go through third-party
vendors. They're kind of--once you find a good one, you want to
keep your hands on them. We have gone through a few vendors
over the years that I have been there. And I'm sure yourself--
you'll get a couple of good dogs. And then, after that, the
quality kind of deteriorates. You know, the quantity is
definitely there. The dogs are there. But it is the quality.
When the use of military working dogs and police working
dogs really took off, we saw a decline in the age of the dogs
that we were getting, as a local agency. I think a lot of them
were being used in the military, and those vendors chose to
sell to them first. And then some of the dogs that we got
were--instead of being 2, 2-1/2, they started to be a year and
a half old or maybe just a little older. And you start to get
too young, and then you run the risk of actually breaking the
dog. You know, the socialization and the hard work and stuff,
they won't respond to the discipline that you put on them. So--
--
Mrs. Demings. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Otto, first of all, I want to thank you so much for the
work that you're doing through your nonprofit. Would you agree
that many Federal agencies use highly trained dogs for a
variety of missions?
Dr. Otto. Yes, absolutely. I think that's one of the things
that we need to consider is that we're not just selecting for
one type of dog. So there may be different criteria for
different agencies because they have different missions. And
one of the really important things about a national center of
excellence is that we can consider the phenotype type, which is
that external expression of the behavior, and associate that
with the genotype, which is the genetic underpinnings, and we
can start to actually select dogs for the jobs that we need
them to be in. And if we have a litter of puppies, we know
they're not all going to be identical. And so there may be some
dogs that do wonderful passenger screening and others that do
person-borne explosives and some that might actually just need
to go to another agency that is looking for support dogs for
veterans with PTSD.
Mrs. Demings. Do you know if agencies have developed test
standards for their canine units that vary according to the
mission?
Dr. Otto. I don't know specifically. I know that one of our
big missions is to actually collect the data because people
don't quantitatively evaluate those characteristics. A lot of
people will take a test that another organization has used,
whether it's relevant or not. And one of our big research
questions is, what's the appropriate test, what's the screening
that best predicts success in the field that those dogs will
end up working in?
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Estes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for Dr. Otto. You know one of the
things we talked about is the acceptance rate of U.S.-bred dogs
is much lower than some of the dogs procured from overseas,
particularly Europe.
What are some of the best practices that we could put in
place to help improve that acceptance rate?
Dr. Otto. First, I think we have to define the acceptance
rate. I think a lot of people are screening dogs looking for
specific things. And we're not breeding those dogs or preparing
those dogs for jobs in the government. So I think that's the
first place that we need to go. And I think that if we're
starting to look at what the jobs are and, again, looking at
those expectations, that phenotype, we can really impact the
dogs early on.
In our program, we start training our dogs at 8 weeks of
age. And as a result of that, we're able to mitigate a lot of
problems that are things that are keeping dogs from being
successful, like environmental sensitivity. So, from the time
our dogs are 8 weeks, they're going on linoleum floors; they're
climbing metal stairs. They're used to these environments.
They're able to actually enter the workforce at 12 to 18
months.
We're also using positive reinforcement training. So that
is a really important factor in allowing these dogs, when they
are young, to be successful in these pretty intense careers. As
long as they're loving what they're doing, it really is
something that they are thriving at.
Mr. Estes. Thank you.
Ms. Goffe, you--we talked about the government procurement
process, and that was one of the questions you were asked. You
know, are there improvements that we can use in identifying our
standards that we need to acquire to and from? And what are
some things that we could do in that regards?
Ms. Goffe. Yes, I think there are some improvements. And I
would also just like to say, I think one of the areas that we
can improve is that, when we're currently obtaining dogs from
overseas, we're getting them at 12 months of age. And to Dr.
Otto's point and to several other points, when we get them at
12 months of age, they then go into a training program almost
immediately. One of the things that we find to be interesting
is that, you know, most breeders already let their dogs go at
about 12 weeks. So there's this long period of time that, for
the dogs that we're, you know, obtaining overseas, we don't
know what's happening in that period of time. It's one of the
challenges that we face.
But, potentially, by getting more and working more to breed
more dogs in the United States, we're going to have a better
oversight of what's happening in that period of time. And that
means better training, better socialization, to your other
question, also potentially increasing the success rate, because
it's not what you're picking up at 12 months like what you're
picking up overseas. We're getting a dog that has--what we see
is what we get at 12 months but, rather, one that we can
actually prepare for a much longer period of time to bringing--
you know, to bringing that into the system.
Mr. Estes. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the--our ranking member, Mrs.
Watson Coleman, from New Jersey for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A breeder typically--I want to talk about a breeder in this
country. A breeder typically holds on to the dog and then will
allow the dog be purchased at what age? Is it 8 weeks, 12
weeks?
Ms. Goffe. Yes. Typically--and, of course, it varies. But
most breeders who are going to let a dog go let it go at about
8 to 12 weeks of age, getting it to its new home to start
socialization and training at that point.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
So, Lieutenant Smith, if the breeder is letting the dog
become available between 8 and 12 weeks, do you purchase the
dog at that age and then engage in a year's worth of training?
What happens in between--what happens before--between the time
that the breeder has a dog that's eligible to be purchased and
you, the end user, actually gets it?
Mr. Smith. We may have to answer this jointly. But, from
our end, the breeders--and, unfortunately, we do typically get
ours from Europe through a third-party vendor. So the breeder
is obviously in Europe. They're raising it from a puppy up
until probably about a year is when the vendor from, you know,
the State of Florida is typically taking a trip to Europe. The
dog is going to be about a year old. Vendors have certain tests
that they will conduct with the breeders over there, whether or
not they want to purchase it. You know, unfortunately, some of
the third-party vendors are like used car salesmen. You know,
they want to bring in as many dogs as they can and get rid of
them as fast as they can. And some of their testing programs,
you know, they'll bring in dogs that don't meet standards for
local law enforcement.
So then we'll go through the vender, and we run our own
series of tests to see if it's a dog that we would want to
employ
Mrs. Watson Coleman. And then do your dogs get
recertified--they get certified in a particular detection or
whatever, and then do they get recertified? If so, how often?
Mr. Smith. Correct. So full purchase dogs, those 14 that I
talked about--and, you know, they have a larger job. So that is
standardized by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. And
that's 480 hours of training. And that covers all those areas
that I talked about, building searches, area searches,
tracking, apprehension. Any odor work after that, narcotics or
explosives, is another 160.
So, you know, manpowerwise, Dr. Otto touched on the cost
for the handler themselves being in training that long. You
know, it's probably about 4 to 5 months before--once we get the
dog and that handler is on the street with that team.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, Ms. Goffe, tell me this. What
needs to be done so that a breeder would hold on--a breeder
interested in having the dog purchased for security purposes,
what would need to be done to make that happen?
Ms. Goffe. Right. Great question. There are a couple of
things that we can do. One of the things we suggest is looking
at the incentives currently. What we're dealing with with a lot
of the really wonderful hunting field trial dogs that we would
normally be looking at, one of the problems is that a breeder
can sell them at 12 weeks for a comparable price that the
government will pay at 12 months. A breeder will say: Well, you
know, I can hold this dog for another year, feed it, you know,
train it, medical care, et cetera, and maybe the government
will want it. Or I can sell it to this great home down the
street that's going to pay the same price.
So, unfortunately, we have a rather--a disincentive for
breeders to be selling to the government. Having said that, AKC
has reached out, and we do know people are interested in doing
this.
One of the things that we think is a critical need--and
this goes to your point earlier, what do we do in that year?
What happens with the foreign dogs? We don't know what happens
with the foreign dogs in that period from 12 weeks to 1 year.
But with the U.S. dogs, there are several programs out there
that have developed relationships with prisons. So you have
some prison socialization and training. We have found those to
be very, very successful. Dr. Otto's program has been----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I was going to ask Dr. Otto about a
response to this question as well.
Ms. Goffe. Uh-huh.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. If you don't mind.
Dr. Otto. I was dying to tell you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I can tell.
Dr. Otto. Please ask me. Please ask me.
At the beginning, that was really our big challenge. We
figured we could get breeders to breed and then sell puppies at
8 to 12 weeks. We knew we had people who wanted dogs at a year
to 18 months. And so our big challenge was, what happens in
that time period?
And the Penn Vet Working Dog Center has really been an
experiment in what we can do. We found that it is so valuable
to be able to have those dogs. And our dogs come every day to
school and are trained and then go home and live with foster
families. And so those dogs are able to be tweaked and adjusted
and remedial efforts and everything, which is why we think
they're so successful. But it's also very labor intensive.
And one of our goals is to look at what the cost-
effectiveness of, maybe, a prison program, but also maybe a
partial prison program. Because we know the dogs in the prison
programs don't get the environmental exposure that sometimes we
need. So some sort of melding of that. There may be kennel
programs. There may be a lot of things that we have to research
and ask the question: What's the most effective? What is the
most cost-effective and also trainingwise? But, I think, what
we've missed out in so many of these programs is this early
childhood development and our ability to really influence the
dogs and set them up for success.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you.
My time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chair now recognizes my colleague from Alabama,
Congressman Rogers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman Palmer. And I want to thank
you and Chairman Katko for calling this very important hearing.
This is a subject that needs a lot more discussion and
prominence with the public because I don't think the public
understands how scarce this resource is and how critically
important it is to our national security.
Lieutenant Smith, I didn't hear you say where you procured
the 14 canines from. Where are they sourced from?
Mr. Smith. Typically, we have found several third-party
vendors throughout the State of Florida. We're currently using
one in Miami, Florida, right now. We have a Local one in New
Smyrna Beach. And then we've also used one in the panhandle
near Tallahassee. But, again, all those vendors take their
trips overseas, pick out their dogs, and bring them back.
Mr. Rogers. So they're procuring them from overseas as
well?
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Mr. Rogers. Dr. Otto, one of the things that I have been
advocating for in recent years is that we put more emphasis on
domestic breeding with the understanding that this would be a
subsidized venture by the Federal Government with us getting
first choice of the product. Why do you think that hasn't
happened as we have pushed for this? Why do you think that the
universities and the marketplace have not formed a consortium
to develop this breeding capacity domestically?
Dr. Otto. I think it's a great question. And I think that
timing is a lot, and the fact that a lot of the agencies
weren't talking to each other, and breeders weren't talking.
And this whole meeting that the AKC hosted was such a great
revelation of getting all of the people in the same room so
that we could have this discussion and come to the realization
that we all need to work together. And I think having a center
of excellence to kind of coordinate it--because, to be
successful, we're going to need a breeding co-op. And a
breeding co-op means that we don't have a centralized breeding
source, but we have a mechanism to bring all these individuals
in together to study it, collect data, look at the different
programs of how to raise the dogs from that 8 weeks to the 12
months. And then, I call it Working Dog Finder, which is like
Puppy Finder, where you actually have the organizations come in
and say, ``I need a dog that does this, this, and this,'' and
the consortium, the co-op, has dogs that then they can match up
so that we can actually funnel things.
I think one of our challenges has been that we've been very
narrow. It's like: I only want to work with explosive detection
dogs. Well, we know that not every dog is going to be
successful in that realm. So we want to make sure that we bring
in everybody.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the way I envision this--and I see the
Vapor Wake explosive detection canines as the top tier, the
Cadillac of explosive detection. And then you've got the
passenger screening canines underneath that. But, in my
experience--and I've been doing this a long time, dealing with
this topic--that, even if a dog is not capable of those two
careers, they can always drop down and be used on the border
for drug detection and gun detection because the Customs and
Border Protection are getting dogs from the local pound for
that. So I don't see that there would be any waste in a
breeding program that we constructed. But what I hear
repeatedly is, well, the reason why it hasn't happened by the
private sector is the business case doesn't close. Well, I just
think that's because we haven't developed the state-of-the-art
dog that we can produce in this country, which brings me to my
question.
My understanding is that there really isn't a collection of
information about these different breeders, the lines that
they've developed, to--that's being centralized for researchers
like you to study. Is that accurate? Or am I wrong?
Dr. Otto. That is accurate. We are certainly working. And,
again, we're looking at even the genetics. But until we can
have that quantitative phenotype--so, in other words, we can
tell specifically numerically what those traits are that we're
looking for--it's really hard to look at the genetics and say
we should breed this dog to this dog. The International Working
Dog Breeding Association has come up with an incredible program
where people can put in that information and learn what they
call estimated breeding value so we can make good selection
based on those criteria. And that's what's going to move things
forward.
We know the TSA breeding program made incredible genetic
advances over the 10 years that they were there, and that is
the kind of thing that we need to be doing. But we need to be
collecting the science. We need to have those markers, and we
need to know what the genetics is.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that I
submit my remaining questions to be provided to the witnesses
for them to answer for the record.
Mr. Palmer. We are going to have a second round----
Mr. Rogers. Good.
Mr. Palmer. --if you would like to ask those questions, you
may do so, or we'll put them in the record.
Mr. Rogers. I'll wait for the second round. I can ask
questions longer than they'll put up with me.
Mr. Palmer. With that, I will now recognize myself for 5
minutes. And there will be a second round of questions.
Ms. Goffe, one of the issues that prevents increased
utilization of domestically bred dogs is the age at which
agencies are able to accept them. For many breeders, that
doesn't make sense, to hold onto a dog past 8 or 12 weeks when
they are typically sent to their new homes for training,
particularly for--training for detection or passenger
screening. Can you discuss what, if any, steps the American
Kennel Club is taking to try to bridge that gap?
Ms. Goffe. Several. A couple of the things that we have
looked at, in addition to the aforementioned prison programs,
working with some of the universities who are doing the ongoing
training, doing a great job of that, is really working with our
breeders to convince them to sign on to a program where the
dogs that they are producing will be developed for this
purpose. And so they are taking a longer term look at the
puppy, particularly if the people who have, you know, a lot of
family members who can help out with the socialization. You
know, dog breeding is very much, in many parts of the country,
still very much a family operation, so really holding onto them
longer. And then what we envision is making sure that they have
all of the knowledge, the science, the research they need to
make those dogs as strong as possible.
And part of that is by letting the government know,
developing some kind of relationship, where, because you are
able to provide a more stable--a dog with a lot more training
time behind it, you're going to have a greater success, we
hope, with getting into the government program. So it's not
that disincentive of I should sell the dog at 12 weeks rather
than waiting for 12 months. That's one of the options.
Also, our kennel clubs may provide additional options.
And then, finally, we do have a lot of dedicated backers--
ex-breeders, who have aged out of breeding, but they are still
very, very engaged with the dogs. These also present wonderful
people to hold on to a puppy, to be, you know, puppy foster
parents, if you will, for a year or so and really train them,
socialize them, and to give back.
Mr. Palmer. You said something earlier about a business
model and that we don't have a business model for that. Without
going into a long, long answer, I would be interested to know
what that business model would look like. And it seems, in
listening to your answer then, that that's one of the gaps that
we have in getting the dogs that need to be trained for the
kind of work that Lieutenant Smith does, that TSA needs done,
or our armed services. Do you--is there a business model that
you guys have come up with?
Ms. Goffe. We think a lot of it is about financial
incentive, as well, frankly, the ability to do this, and to
make a living at doing this. And one of the concerns that we've
had where the dogs have been procured overseas is, while the
government says that those dogs are cheaper, one of the things
that has not been fully investigated is, are they, in fact,
cheaper, and is the government able or paying what we should be
paying for these highly valuable resources? It may be a case
that the going rate for these dogs should be higher,
particularly when you consider and you compare what we would be
paying at 12 weeks for a puppy versus 12 months and compare
what we're paying to sustain overseas buying trips and all the
additional costs that go along with foreign purchase versus
domestic purchase. So we are actually very supportive of some
language of Mr. Rogers and the Defense Authorization Act that
investigates the differences in the costs and tries to set a
more realistic cost for purchasing puppies at a later date
where they're ready to go.
Mr. Palmer. I'm glad we're going to do a second round
because I want to continue to ask you, along this line, and
I've got questions for Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Otto. And
unlike some chairmen, I won't take 10 minutes for 5. So I'm not
calling any names.
But if we had a different model where we kept these dogs
longer so that they're an appropriate age for this type
training, and they didn't measure up, would those animals still
be--and, Dr. Otto, you can answer this--would those animals
still be appropriate for a family to adopt or even be sold?
Because most of these dogs are purebred, aren't they? That you
could still have a market for that so that you create a
business model where, if the dog doesn't pan out for service
with Lieutenant Smith, the dog would still be a viable product
that someone else might be interested in?
Dr. Otto. I can tell you that the list of people who want
dogs that don't make it in our program is really long. And
because we've had very few dogs that don't make it, we can't
even accommodate that. So there are definitely people who are
interested. But, also, using the model where we can have the
dogs if they're not successful in this program, could they be
successful in another? So, again, defining that phenotype for
each and every one of these programs that's using dogs, we can
have dogs successful in a whole array of different careers, and
then those that aren't successful are going to be very
attractive to people who maybe want to compete in sport or just
really want a pet. Although, a lot of these dogs are pretty
high energy. So they're not your average pet. But they still
are very appealing.
Mr. Palmer. My point is not necessarily as a pet, but are
they marketable? Because what you have here is an overhead
cost, and a business is trying to reduce its overhead. So, if
it's got a primary product that has a high spoilage rate, for
instance, the overhead is higher. But if there's a market for
these dogs--and as Congressman Rogers pointed out--and we make
this, from a price point worthwhile, it seems to me that there
is a business model that could be developed that would make
this work.
We will now begin the second round of questions.
I will recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I stand ready and
willing to take any dogs that might be available because we
have plenty of room in our yard.
Anyways, Lieutenant Smith, I want to talk to you a little
bit more about some kind of boots-on-the-ground examples of the
procurement process and the cost-sharing issues, if any. Are
you cost sharing? Are you collaborating with other agencies?
So, with that in mind, I want to ask you, do you coordinate
with any State, local, or Federal agencies in the procurement
process? Or do you simply do it on your own? And, if you do,
how is it working?
Mr. Smith. Sir, we do do it on our own. We call around to
those vendors that we've used successfully in the past. And,
again, sometimes we run into a shortage problem where they're
just out of dogs, and they haven't taken their trip overseas,
and their stock, they just don't have it. We'll have to look
around a little more.
We do collaborate after the purchase process on training
because it's not fiscally wise to run a 4- or 5-month training
scenario with one dog and one, you know, cop. So we do call
around to--whether it's municipal or county agencies--to see
who has new handlers. Basically, that's the problem, is
handlers come and go. Every once in a while, you'll lose a dog
from age or medical purposes, and then we'll put on joint
training classes to certify that team.
Mr. Katko. All right. So you have heard from Dr. Otto and
Ms. Goffe today at length about the procurement processes and
some of their suggestions. And it does sound like that is,
again, where the problem is, you know, even for you, at the
local level, right? Sometimes you can't find a dog. So you've
heard some of their suggestions. And I'd ask you to be frank
and tell me, what do you think?
Mr. Smith. I think the business model is going to be a
problem. I believe that is the main--I think that's the main
problem with people who get into the business model is--I
referred to them as used car salesmen earlier. They're not
truly in it for the dog, and they're not truly in it for our
end purposes. They're in it to make money. And in order to do
that, they have to push a large amount of animals through their
inventory quickly. And I think that goes to what, maybe, you
were talking about, is, how cheap are these dogs? And why are
they selling them so cheap in Europe? Because, realistically,
if they've held on to them for a year and they've fed them and
they've done the vet tests and everything like that, those
prices probably should be higher. But, for whatever reason,
they're not. And that's why we're getting them from over there,
because here, in the States, when you hold a puppy from 8 weeks
to 12 months, they have incurred that bill as the breeder. And
they have to recoup that from us.
So, you know, whether or not it's the puppy mill
terminology and they just don't--they have a disregard for the
animal itself, and those that don't make it, who knows what
happens to those dogs. You know, some of that probably does
happen in Europe, where it's not going to happen here in the
States.
Mr. Katko. So any suggestions on how to address that issue?
Mr. Smith. Unfortunately, I think that's well above an end-
user person like myself.
Mr. Katko. You provided some pretty good insight, though,
and I appreciate it. So----
Mr. Smith. And thank you for the opportunity. But I really,
like--I am stuck on how to solve that problem, because as an
end-user, I wish we could get our hands on dogs easier and in
that age range of a year and a half to 2 years, because we have
had problems with getting them at a month old. You know, there
are age determination problems, sometimes, when you get them
from Europe. Oh, yeah, he's 16 months old. And come to find
out, he's not really 16 months old. You know, he's a year old.
And that's a problem. And we've wound up having to return dogs
or retire them just because they didn't make it through our
training.
And, obviously, the full-service training aspect of it is a
little more strenuous than the single-purpose aspect of it. And
they go through a lot more, and that's some of the problems
that we have.
Mr. Katko. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mrs. Demings, for at least 5 minutes, maybe longer, since I got
out of order.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I'll take
the full 15.
I, again, want to thank our witnesses because this has just
been so beneficial for us to hear some of the behind-the-scene
processes and some of the challenges that we are facing.
Dr. Otto, I think we'll begin where we left off, and that's
involving the test standards. The TSA canine teams, of course,
work in areas such as airports where there are a tremendous
amount of distractions. And does it make sense to you that the
TSA would develop test standards that reflect the unique
conditions that their canines operate in?
Dr. Otto. Absolutely. I think it's appropriate.
Mrs. Demings. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record a letter from the TSA.
Mr. Palmer. Without objection.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much.
And I'd like to share a quote from them that says: Canines
displaying a minimum amount of reward, drive, and search
behavior may be acceptable for a canine slated to work single-
suspect vehicle or occasional VIP motorcades, but it would be
unsuitable when the expectation is screening passengers at an
airport checkpoint where the use of canines acceptable to
screening persons is still relatively new to explosive
detection canines.
Dr. Otto, do you agree that more canine teams--or believe
that more canine teams are needed at the State and local levels
as their responsibilities continue to grow? We've heard
Lieutenant Smith share a little bit about the additional use of
canines.
Dr. Otto. I think the demands are, you know, skyrocketing,
and it certainly makes me feel more comfortable when I get back
on Amtrak to know that there are canines at Union Station.
Mrs. Demings. Are you aware of domestic vendors that are
actually working on training canines to meet TSA standards? Are
you aware of any vendors that are actually working with the TSA
to develop standards for their canine teams?
Dr. Otto. As far as developing standards, I am not aware. I
do know that there are several vendors that are working with
TSA, particularly on the Person-Borne Explosives Detection Dog.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you.
Can anyone share, what is the average cost of acquiring a
canine and training it, whether single-purpose use or
multipurpose? What's the average cost?
Mr. Smith. I can tell you that we pay anywhere from $9,000
to $13,000 per dog, and that is before the man-hours are
adjusted into, in the State of Florida, 480 hours for a full-
service dog.
Mrs. Demings. --$9,000 to $13,000?
Mr. Smith. Correct. And that's based on how much training
it has in it already. Vendors sell some dogs that are
considered to be titled, and they have more training once we
get them.
Mrs. Demings. Ms. Goffe, any?
Ms. Goffe. I would say that we've heard a wide range of
numbers based also on the training. But that's along the lines
that we've heard.
Mrs. Demings. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Otto, you want to talk a little bit about people
working together. You made reference to, a little while ago,
about the collaboration, the sense of it, essentially. Ten
years ago, roughly--I'm also a member of the Armed Services
Committee, in addition to Homeland Security--I wanted to try to
get the canine community, breeding community, and training
community, to agree on working together to develop a standard
of physical capability but also training that the government
could rely on for purchasing, whether it's for the military or
for Homeland Security. It was impossible to get these folks to
work together and agree. Everybody felt their way of training
was superior to everybody else. Do you sense that has
dissipated in any way or changed? Because you talk about this
center of excellence and this sense of cooperation. I worry
that we're going to see that devolve again.
Dr. Otto. I think it's a risk. But I do think there is a
change. I think that all of the organizations are realizing
that they no longer can get the dogs that they want. And so
they're all feeling this pressure, and they realize they need
to cooperate. And the fact that we had all of the
representatives at the AKC meeting and we all agreed on kind of
the general direction was really exciting. And I think you laid
a lot of the groundwork by setting the seeds for that. And I
think the timing and the cost and the struggle that people are
having is really forcing them to have to work together.
Mr. Rogers. I want to get to, I think, the point Mrs.
Demings was getting at, on the price that folks like you are
having to pay. And the government is paying higher than that in
some situations for the top-notch canines. And I have Auburn in
my district. And Auburn's success rate on dogs that can make it
as Vapor Wake, which, again, is standard, is about 60 to 70
percent of the dogs that they produce in their breeding
program.
It's my belief if through organization and research that we
can get that production and success rate to 80, 85 percent,
then that business case is going to close so that they can sell
that 80 or 85 percent at the $15,000 or $20,000 level. And then
the passenger screening dogs would come in at 10,000 or 12,000.
And then the dogs that can't do that, they could maybe be great
for single-detection searches or cadaver searches or drug dogs
or whatever, could be then sold for whatever the market would
bear to get the waste out so the business model closes. That's
what I'm after in trying to get a breeding program stood up and
supported by the Federal Government.
Ms. Goffe, DHS has struggled with procurement and writing
capability requirements for years. What do you think the DHS
can do to make more clear what their expectations are when it
comes to American canine companies and the product that they're
wanting to have processed through their screening programs?
Ms. Goffe. Well, first, I'd like to say that it's a tough
challenge. There's a lot of subjectivity when it comes to
training.
Having said that, one of the things that we've had
discussions with DHS and vendors is that we need to have
specific sort of standards for the baseline of these types of
dogs. So that's to say that, when you bring one of these dogs
in--we're talking about untrained dogs or what they've defined
as untrained dogs. Some of those dogs are going to go on to do
additional training and to go to, essentially, higher levels
like the Vapor Wake level. But if we can develop a single
standard of what a dog who's going to be a detection dog should
be able to achieve, whether, you know, again, it's
environmental, mental, physical, all the various types of
health, and then the standards for training spell out----
Mr. Rogers. So are those requirements not written with
enough specificity now? Is that your argument?
Ms. Goffe. I'm sorry?
Mr. Rogers. Are those requirements not written with enough
specificity?
Ms. Goffe. The requirements are very vague right now.
Mr. Rogers. What about after action, when somebody goes
through the training facility and their dog is not successful,
or the screening facility, are you given clear feedback? Are
you hearing that they're giving clear feedback about what the
shortcomings were?
Ms. Goffe. We have, unfortunately, heard they have not been
getting clear feedback. We have heard a lot of frustration from
people who have spent a lot of time providing what they thought
the government wanted based on a scope of work and then have
heard that, well, this scope of work can range from anything
along a set of guidelines to, well, it is subjective. So, if we
can nail down a clear, concise, scope of work, what do these
dogs need to do so that they can be better prepared, we think
we'll have a better response from breeders and vendors.
Mr. Rogers. Great. My time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, I'd like to offer my final
questions for Dr. Otto for the record. And, with that, I yield
the balance of my time.
Mr. Palmer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the gentleman
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies, sir, thank you for being here today.
Lieutenant Smith, I was a police officer for 14 years, SWAT
operator for 12, been on hundreds of missions with canine guys.
And you're a special breed, and no pun intended. So thank you
for your service.
And I'd like to ask you: You know, this is a Nation that's
$20 trillion in debt. And, of course, we have to find the most
efficient and wise expenditure of the people's Treasury. That's
one of the reasons that some of us are pushing heavily for the
increased use of canine teams because some of the alternatives
of technology are very, very expensive. And we talk about the
expense of a given dog right now being up to 25 grand for a
canine; we'll cover that in a second.
But let me just ask, Lieutenant Smith, in your career, do
you know of any known technology that can duplicate the
performance and versatility of a good canine team?
Mr. Smith. Not even close.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much.
So let's talk about the expense of the dogs. When you have
a broad-spectrum detection certification level for a dog,
explosives, narcotics, cadaver detection, human sport tracking,
each one of these certification levels, would that not add to
the value of a dog if that dog is already certified in that
detection technique?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, it would.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. So you can either buy the dog
that's already certified with these various broad-spectrum
skills, or, if you intended for the dog to have that skill,
you'd have to send that dog and his trainer to that school,
would you not?
Mr. Smith. You would.
Mr. Higgins. Which would increase the expense of the dog,
if you make that comparison. I think that's very reasonable,
don't you?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. So the other expense of a canine dog, is
it not the bloodline of the dog? Isn't that considered----
Mr. Smith. Is that for me?
Mr. Higgins. Isn't there sort of a culture amongst canine
cops--and I wish my brother was still here--to have a dog with
a deep bloodline?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Goffe, don't you agree? Let me not put words in your
mouth, ma'am. I would suggest that dogs bred and raised here in
the United States, although the bloodline might not run as deep
and appear as pure and pedigreed, they'd still be quite capable
of performing as a canine dog. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Goffe. Absolutely.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
So if we can shift this culture of, LT, from amongst our
brothers and sisters that are canine operators, from having a
dog with a deep bloodline to an AKC registered and trained dog,
wouldn't you believe that would be an efficient expenditure of
the people's Treasury and a very effective choice?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, it would.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. Let's jump to officer retention and how
that impacts. I will question you specifically, Lieutenant, is
when you--what impact does canine reassignment to a new
handler--if you lose an officer to another department or he
transfers to another section within your own department and you
have to reassign that canine, what generally happens with that
dog?
Mr. Smith. So, if you're keeping the same dog and the dog
is fully trained, they still have to go through the same amount
of training in Florida that I talked about, the 480 hours. They
still have to do that 480. It's a little more turnkey for the
cop because the dog already knows what he's doing, and it's
just a matter of time to get the officer up. But they still
have to put those hours in. So that team is off the road and
away from those assignments for that 480 hours.
Mr. Higgins. So they can't perform because they're being
re-paired?
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Mr. Higgins. Right. And has it been your experience, sir,
that sometimes the dogs that cost you less money when you first
got them end up to be better performers than the dogs that cost
more money?
Mr. Smith. In some cases, yes.
Mr. Higgins. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this has been--thank you
for holding this hearing. I think this is exactly the course of
action we need to take on this subcommittee. And I, for one, am
a loud and vocal advocate for the increased use of canines and
their teams.
And I thank the ladies and the gentleman for appearing
before us today.
I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize myself now for a few minutes of questions, as
undefined as that might be.
Lieutenant Smith, one of the reasons we're holding this
hearing is because of conversations that I had with Ranking
Member Demings and Chairman Katko. And I want to recognize
them. As law enforcement professionals, they have been
invaluable in educating me about some of these issues.
But the primary concern that I had that I brought up to
both of them, and they shared this concern, is the lack of
perimeter security at airports. I think all three of us fly
every week. And I can't speak for them, but I'm going in and
out of airports where it is not rare to see no security at the
dropoff point and then to get inside the airport, in the
ticketing area, and not see any security.
Does that concern you?
Mr. Smith. Yes, absolutely, especially from the history of
certain terrorist events.
Mr. Palmer. I would expect that answer.
In talking with Ranking Member Demings about the
jurisdictional issues between local law enforcement and TSA and
trying to decide how this needs to be layered, whether it
should be local law enforcement deploying the canines versus
TSA, I think that's yet to be resolved. But I do think the
issue is, is that we need more quality dogs. We need a much
more visible presence. You made a statement very early on that
just the appearance of a dog or a canine unit is a deterrent.
And I mentioned airports. I think the same thing is true of
surface transportation hubs and major events. The primary focus
of this is figuring out, how do we get more dogs approved, and
particularly domestic dogs? But how do we get those deployed?
What resources do we need to provide to make that happen so
that we avoid another catastrophic event like we've just
witnessed in Las Vegas?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think, for the end user, no matter how
successful you are with the domestic breeding program, it's
going to come down to a budgetary concern for the local agency.
You know, whoever is the authority over the international
airport or the domestic airport or whatever, it's going to come
down to actually being able to pay for those dogs no matter
what the price point is. So, whether there's any assistance,
you know, from the Federal Government or anything like that,
that's going to be the biggest concern because people who raise
their hand and want to work with a dog, you don't have a
shortage of that. You'll have the officers that want to come
out and do that job. It's a matter of actually being able to
fund it at our level.
Mr. Palmer. Well, one of the things that we were talking
about earlier, and Congressman Rogers brought this up, and I
think I brought it up in my questions earlier, is reducing the
number of dogs that are rejected. And I think one of the ways
you do that, Dr. Otto, is that you have very clear evaluation
standards. And can you tell us how, for instance, TSA sets and
evaluates standards for passenger screening and explosive
detection?
Dr. Otto. I'm afraid I can't tell you how they do that
because I haven't worked directly with them. We use the TSA
screening process for our puppies to see if they're able to
enter in. But I have actually not worked with the TSA at the
level of that training and evaluation.
Mr. Palmer. Well, wouldn't it make sense that if local law
enforcement, for instance, they have jurisdiction over local
airports, if they're within their city limits or their area of
jurisdiction, so there's going to be overlap, wouldn't it make
sense that there be set standards across the board so that when
you have local law enforcement or other law enforcement
interacting with Federal agencies like TSA, you've got the dogs
all trained to the same standard? And I realize the handlers
will--you know, that changes some things somewhat. But wouldn't
that make sense, that everybody is training to the same
standards?
Dr. Otto. Yes, I believe. And I believe that DHS has been
doing some testing. And I think one of the things about the
standards, too, is, who is evaluating the dogs? It really does
need to be an outside group evaluating the dogs as opposed to
an internal assessment, and I think that might be where some of
our challenge also comes. If we're doing--if we're sort of
evaluating ourselves, we're a little softer than maybe we
should be.
Mr. Palmer. Is there enough capacity to supply our domestic
needs, whether it's TSA or local law enforcement? Is there
enough domestic capacity to provide those dogs?
Dr. Otto. Currently, I don't think that there is. I think
that that's why we need to move on to a dedicated breeding
program. And I think we need to realize that there's a 2-year
lag from the time we start breeding. So, if we want them
tomorrow, we needed to be planning this 2 years ago.
Mr. Palmer. And that goes back to the business model that I
think we're going to have to develop and the resources that
Congressman Rogers mentioned.
Unless there are other members with questions, I thank our
witnesses for appearing before us today. I would like to just
make this point: Again, this has been a very collaborative
effort by both subcommittees. And even though Chairman Katko
and Ranking Member Demings and I began talking about these
issues months ago, the timeliness of this joint hearing is not
lost on the members of these two subcommittees. The horror that
we saw taking place in Las Vegas Sunday night loomed large over
us as another reminder of the dangers that we all face and the
responsibility that we share to ensure the safety and security
of all Americans. And to echo what has already been said, we
pray for the grieving families that have lost friends and loved
ones, and pray for the full recovery of those who are injured.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
the record.
If there's no further business, without objection, the
subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]