U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–902 PDF 2007

SNIFFING OUT TERRORISM:

THE USE OF DOGS IN HOMELAND SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PREVENTION OF 

MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND 

OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

Serial No. 109–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, FLORIDA

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN , U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

PETER T. KING, New York Ex Officio 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi Ex Officio

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, Integration 

and Oversight: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2

The Honorable Kendrick B. Meek, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, 

Integration and Oversight ................................................................................... 3

The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Michael McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 25

The Honorable Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 22

The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ................................................................................................ 27 

WITNESSES

PANEL I 

Special Agent Terry Bohan, Chief, National Canine Training and Operations 

Support Branch, Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 

Department of Justice: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Mr. David Kontny, Director, National Explosives Detection Canine, Team 

Program, Transportation Security Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

Mr. Lee Titus, Director of Canine Programs, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

PANEL II 

Dr. C. Michael Moriarty, Associate Provost and Vice President for Research, 

Auburn University: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

Ms. Terri Recknor, President, Garrison and Sloan Canine Detection: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 43

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 46
Page

IV

Chief Ralph Eugene Wilson, Jr., Chief of Police, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 

Transit, Authority (MARTA): 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 33

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 
(1)

SNIFFING OUT TERRORISM: 

THE USE OF DOGS IN HOMELAND SECURITY 

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:14 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rogers, McCaul, Dent, Meek, Thompson, Jackson-Lee, and Pascrell. 

Mr. ROGERS. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland Security, 

Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight, will 

come to order. 

I would first like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for 

taking time out of their schedules to be here today. 

We are holding this hearing today to examine how dogs are being 

used to assist Federal law enforcement officers in homeland security missions. 

The hearing follows a live demonstration and a closed briefing 

earlier this morning, during which Members had an opportunity to 

raise issues with our Federal witnesses that were law-enforcement 

sensitive. 

I wish to first welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank 

them for taking the time out of their busy schedules to be with us 

today. 

Dogs may be considered not only man’s best friend but also one 

of our best defenses against terrorism. They have a keen sense of 

smell and a strong ability to process smell. Research shows that 

while humans have 5 million olfactory cells in their noses, dogs 

have over 300 million. 

Research also shows that the part of the brain responsible for 

processing smell is up to 40 times larger in dogs than in humans. 

As we will hear from our witnesses today, dogs are used to detect 

explosives, narcotics, bulk cash and concealed humans. 

Dogs are also being used in search and rescue operations such 

as those taking place in areas ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 

After the London bombings in July, dogs were deployed throughout London’s subway system, as well as in mass transit systems 

here at home. In a mass transit setting, dogs are one of the best 

tools available to screen passengers and their bags for explosives, 
2

primarily because dogs can move easily through crowds and can be 

moved quickly from one location to another. 

Dogs are also an important complement to the explosive detection technologies that may be too cumbersome, less mobile and 

more costly to use. 

Dogs, however, have inherent limitations, most of which were explored during our closed hearing. While it is important to expand 

the use of dogs where appropriate, it is not the panacea that some 

have suggested for protecting our subway systems or detecting concealed weapons. 

Today’s public session will explore a range of other issues related 

to the use of dogs in homeland security. Our specific questions include: how are dogs trained? Are the multiple Federal training programs coordinated effectively? 

What are the costs associated with training and can they be reduced? And should better guidelines be developed to ensure the effectiveness of dogs that state and local agencies buy from private 

dog trainers? 

On our first panel today we are pleased to welcome experts in 

the training and deployment of dogs from two agencies in the Department of Homeland Security—U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Transportation Security Administration. 

And I would also like to mention that today the Transportation 

Security Administration is announcing an expansion of its national 

explosive detection canine team program to 10 mass transit and 

commuter rail systems across the country. 

One of those systems is right here in the nation’s capital, which 

will see three bomb dogs. We look forward to hearing more about 

this initiative from TSA witnesses. 

We also have a representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice. 

On our second panel, I am especially pleased to welcome a representative from Auburn University, which operates the Canine 

Detection Training Center located near my hometown in Anniston, 

Alabama. Auburn University’s canine training program has been 

chosen by a number of Federal, state and local agencies to train 

their dogs because of the range of training services it offers. 

We also will hear from the chief of police for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which has two dogs trained by Auburn University. 

And finally, we will hear from a representative from a private canine training company in Florida which works extensively with the 

cruise line industry. 

Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us 

today. I look forward to their testimony on this important topic. 

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE ROGERS

We are holding this hearing today to examine how dogs are being used to assist 

Federal law enforcement officers in homeland security missions. 

The hearing follows a live demonstration, and a closed briefing earlier this morning, during which Members had an opportunity to raise issues with our Federal witnesses that were law-enforcement sensitive. 

I would first like to welcome our distinguished witnesses, and thank them for taking time out of their busy schedules to be with us today. 

Dogs may be considered not only man’s best friend, but also one of our best defenses against terrorism. 
3

They have a keen sense of smell, and a strong ability to process smell. 

Research shows that while humans have five million olfactory cells in their noses, 

dogs have over 300 million. 

Research also shows that the part of the brain responsible for processing smell 

is up to 40 times larger in dogs, than in humans. 

As we will hear from our witnesses today, dogs are used to detect explosives, narcotics, bulk cash, and concealed humans. 

Dogs also are being used in search and rescue operations, such as those taking 

place in areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. 

After the London bombings in July, dogs were deployed throughout London’s subway system, as well as in mass transit systems here at home. 

In the mass transit setting, dogs are one of the best tools available to screen passengers and their bags for explosives, primarily because dogs can move easily 

through crowds and can be moved quickly from one location to another. 

Dogs are also an important complement to explosives detection technologies that 

may be too cumbersome, less mobile, and more costly to use. 

Dogs, however, have inherent and significant limitations, most of which were explored during our closed session. 

While it is important to expand the use of dogs where appropriate, it is not the 

panacea that some have suggested for protecting our subway systems, or detecting 

concealed explosives. 

Today’s public session will explore a range of other issues related to the use of 

dogs in homeland security. 

Our specific questions include: How are dogs trained? Are the multiple Federal 

training programs coordinated effectively? What are the costs associated with this 

training, and can they be reduced? 

And, should better guidelines be developed to ensure the effectiveness of dogs that 

state and local agencies buy from private dog trainers? 

On our first panel today, we are pleased to welcome experts in the training and 

deployment of dogs from two agencies in the Department of Homeland Security—

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration. 

We also have a representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives in the Department of Justice. 

On our second panel, I am especially pleased to welcome a representative from 

Auburn University, which operates the Canine Detection Training Center located in 

my hometown of Anniston, Alabama. 

Auburn University’s canine training program has been chosen by a number of 

Federal, state, and local agencies to train their dogs because of the range of training 

services it offers. 

We also will hear from the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 

Transit Authority, which has two dogs trained by Auburn University. 

And finally, we will hear from a representative from a private canine training 

company in Florida, which works extensively with the cruise line industry. 

Once again, I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and look forward to their 

testimony on this important topic. 

I now yield. . .

Mr. ROERS. I now would like to yield to the Ranking Member, my 

friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Meek. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I pretty much made my opening statement during the demonstration end, but I just want to say again that any testimony 

that will be helpful for us to be able to explain to not only colleagues here in the Congress but on the local and state level the 

reason why handler and canine officer has to have the kind of 

training, the kind of down time, so that they can be effective while 

they are in service. 

I think it is important. I think Americans also have to go 

through, and we in the Congress have to go through, quite a bit 

of education, of understanding why we have to have so many canines and officers and handlers in a particular area to cover a train 

station or to cover an airport gate. 
4

And that understanding, because I believe that the key to defending the homeland—and I hope that you can talk about this a 

little bit more—is to make sure that the American public is comfortable with securing themselves, that we have—we get a lot of 

complaints about the TSA and TSA officers because they are doing 

their jobs. 

I believe that our canine officers can help us not only at airport 

gates but also in train stations and cruise ship areas of doing a 

thorough search, doing a search that, one, does not feel that it is 

intrusive, and so I feel the expansion of this program is going to 

be paramount to protecting America. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I definitely have 

some questions afterwards. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we struggle to make our transportation systems and critical 

infrastructure more secure, canine detection systems are an invaluable tool in that effort. 

As we saw in the canine demonstration, dogs are indeed 

versatile, mobile explosive detection systems. I firmly believe that 

greater utilization of these four-legged inspectors make a lot of 

sense. 

In dense, dynamic environments such as airports and train platforms, trained explosive detection dogs are able to not only screen 

passenger and bags but serve as a deterrent to would-be terrorists. 

I am particularly interested in hearing how they would enhance 

security in the rail and transit environment and can help screen 

air cargo. With respect to air cargo, the 9/11 Commission put securing planes from explosive cargo on its unfinished agenda. 

How do we close the air cargo gap, given the vastness and variation of air cargo? Every day the U.S. air cargo supply chain handles more than 50,000 tons of cargo. There are few technological solutions for screening cargo, which is often palletized and shrinkwrapped. 

I understand that TSA’s pilot with explosive detection dogs indicated that canines show great promise as a screening tool in the 

air cargo environment. I look forward to hearing from our witness 

from TSA about how TSA is doing to ensure that dogs are integrated into our layer approach to cargo security. 

I am also interested in seeing greater utilization of dogs in the 

rail and transit environment. We know from both the 9/11 

attackers and now the London bombers that terrorists generally do 

a run-through before committing their attack. 

Increased visibility of explosive detection dogs together with surveillance cameras and a perceptible law enforcement presence may 

well make a terrorist think twice. 

With all that dogs can do, the impulse may be there to use them 

to the exclusion of other technology and approaches. That would be 

a mistake. When it comes to securing our power plants, rail systems and other vital infrastructures, we need layered approaches 
5

that integrates different technologies, surveillance and detection 

dogs. 

Like with any explosive detection system, dogs need maintenance. The key distinction is that dogs rely on their handlers for 

care, not engineers. Also, like explosive detection systems, dogs 

perform differently depending on heat, cold and other environmental factors. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what dogs can 

and cannot do. I know that all around this nation, in communities 

large and small, there is a great deal of interest in getting more 

dogs to do explosive detection. 

Given that federal resources are far too limited to meet the need, 

they are forced to look to private vendors. However, finding a reputable canine detection company is not as easy as you would think. 

There are no federal standards and a whole lot of associations out 

there that are happy to certify a dog, for a fee, I might add. 

State and local governments and private firms that oversee critical infrastructures, like oil refineries and water treatment plants, 

need to trust that if they acquire a dog team it can do the job. 

With the growth in interest in explosive detection dogs, we must 

start looking at national standards and certification. 

Again, thank you to the witness who joined us, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank the gentleman. 

I would remind other members of the committee that their opening statements may be submitted for the record.

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER T. KING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. 

As we saw after the July terrorist bombings in London, and more recently in the 

recovery efforts for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, dogs are a versatile resource not 

only for the Department of Homeland Security, but also for law enforcement officials 

at all levels of government. 

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Customs and Border Protection was among other Federal agencies that deployed urban search and rescue 

dogs to the area, as well as cadaver detection dogs. CBP sent three of its specially 

trained dogs to assist in locating the deceased. 

In my home State of New York, dogs are an integral part of the daily activities 

of the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey. The NYPD has three units that use canine teams—the Narcotics 

Unit, the Bomb Squad, and the Patrol Unit. The Narcotics Unit has eight drug detection dogs; the Bomb Squad has 19 explosives detection dogs; and the Patrol Unit 

has 38 dogs, several of which are search and rescue and cadaver dogs that are certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

This morning’s hearing will offer an opportunity to learn more about these dogs’ 

capabilities and how they contribute to the Federal government’s layered defense 

against terrorism. While dogs are not a perfect solution, they can be easily and 

quickly deployed to a variety of venues, and they support homeland security as well 

as non-homeland security missions. 

This hearing will also offer an opportunity to examine the status of the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to consolidate some of its overlapping programs. 

CBP announced last month that, effective October 1, 2005, it will be consolidating 

its two canine training programs under one office. I look forward to hearing more 

about how this effort will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of CBP’s canine 

training programs. 

I am pleased to see that the panelists today represent a range of perspectives regarding the use of detection canines. We have several agencies that train dogs for 

use at the Federal, state, and local level; we have researchers who are working to 

improve dogs’ detection capabilities; and we have a local law enforcement agency 

that uses the dogs trained by two agencies here today. 
6

I look forward to hearing more about how dogs are helping protect the homeland 

every day, and how we can further improve the training and coordination of Federal 

canine programs to make the most of these dogs’ special talents. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. We are pleased to have two panels of distinguished 

witnesses before us today on this important topic. 

I would like to remind the witnesses that their entire statements 

may be submitted, but we would ask that you try to limit your 

opening statements to 5 minutes so that we can move on to questions. 

The Chair now calls the first panel and recognizes Mr. Lee Titus, 

Director of Canine Programs at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Titus? 

STATEMENT OF LEE TITUS 

Mr. TITUS. Good morning, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member 

Meek, members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the training of canine teams within U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. 

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the committee for 

holding this hearing on canine teams, helping us to bring attention 

to the accomplishments to the forefront of this important program 

and the issues facing the program. 

CBP’s canine law enforcement program, one of several Department of Homeland Security canine programs that protects life and 

property, contributes to the department’s law enforcement and 

antiterrorism missions and is the largest federal canine law enforcement program in the United States. 

CBP has trained and deployed thousands of canine teams in support of our antiterrorism and traditional missions over the years. 

Working together at and between our nation’s official ports of 

entry, our canine teams are a critical component in CBP’s layered 

approach to border protection and our ability to secure our border, 

protect our homeland and defend against the threats posted by potential terrorists, explosives, chemical weapons, illegal aliens, narcotics and harmful agricultural pests and products. 

The canine enforcement program is responsible for a significant 

portion of narcotics seizures made by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry, checkpoints and between official ports of 

entry, accounting for more than 11,600 narcotics seizures, totaling 

over 1,804,000 pounds of narcotics for fiscal year 2004. 

The canine enforcement program was responsible for detecting 

over 40,000 concealed humans and seizures of U.S. currency. It detected U.S. currency worth more than $33 million in fiscal year 

2004. 

During fiscal year 2004, the canine enforcement program was accountable for over 68,000 quarantine material interceptions of 

plant materials and over 17,900 quarantine material interceptions 

of animal products with a combined weight of over 6,500 pounds. 

Beginning next month, CBP canine team training will be realigned and consolidated under CBP’s Office of Training and Development. It is important to note that the operational control in the 
7

field will be retained by the Offices of Field Operations and Border 

Patrol. 

This consolidation of canine training is a major step for CBP toward our goal of forging a single, unified border enforcement agency for the United States and gaining efficiencies whenever possible. 

It is a good fit and it makes sense. 

CBP’s Office of Training and Development already manages most 

of CBP’s training, including basic and advanced training for CBP 

officers at the port of entry and border patrol agents and between 

the ports. 

The merging of the canine training program will not only contribute to the efficiency of the training program, but it will ultimately contribute to the operational efficiency and the training nomenclature, training processes and certification process will be unified, as appropriate. 

Migration of the CBP canine training program toward common 

language in training processes will enhance the ability of the Office 

of Border Patrol or Office of Field Operations’ canine teams to 

jointly respond to major threats or initiatives. 

CBP has invested a lot of time and effort in examining how best 

to manage its two legacy canine team programs. Over a period of 

several months, subject matter experts from the Office of Field Operations and the Office of Border Patrol, as well as other senior 

staff from throughout CBP, examined all aspects of CBP’s canine 

programs and identified a number of best practices from across our 

agency. 

Under CBP’s new model, operators retain control of canine field 

operations and training assets are consolidated under a single canine team training program. 

As a result, CBP’s capacity to train canine teams will increase, 

and canine team training will be improved by promulgating state 

of the art training techniques and the best practices that evolved 

in both historically separate training programs. 

Currently CBP has approximately 1,187 canine teams deployed 

around the country. Our canine teams consist of about 50 percent 

human detection narcotic teams, approximately 40 percent narcotic 

detector dog teams, and the remaining teams are of other disciplines. 

CBP estimates that its new consolidated training program will 

train 246 teams in fiscal year 2006, expandable to some extent 

with the addition of resources. 

Although CBP’s canine teams came from legacy agencies, all the 

teams receive formal training and certification through fully mature, highly respected courses of instruction. 

Canine teams are trained and certified and deployed in one or 

more of the following disciplines: field human detection, narcotic 

detection, explosive detection, detection of U.S. currency, cadaver 

detection, detection of prohibited agriculture products, open field 

tracking and trailing, and the detection of chemicals associated 

with weapons of mass destruction. 

All canine enforcement teams are certified prior to field deployment and are subject to regular training maintenance requirements and undergo performance evaluations to maintain certifi-
8

cation of their detection capability, with the exception of CBP’s explosive dogs that undergo a semiannual certification. 

CBP maintains accurate records on the performance of each 

team, and CBP canine teams answer to the same rules, regulations 

and supervisory chain of command as the rest of the operational 

workforce. 

Each supervisor exercising control over canine enforcement 

teams is required to observe detector dog performance and proficiency training during employment. Supervisors responsible for 

canine enforcement teams ensure that each officer conducts mandatory proficiency training. 

CBP has also developed a training course designed for CBP’s 

first and second line supervisors on all aspects of the proper use 

and deployment of canine teams. Canine teams assigned to airports 

and seaports examine vessels, baggage, cargo, mail and passengers. 

Teams stationed and land border crossings devote their time to examining vehicles and merchandise entering the United States. 

Canine teams can be utilized to search for a trained odor in almost any area imaginable. During every work day, canine teams 

conduct training exercises to enhance the dogs’ performance in the 

work environment. 

Canine teams are a wonderful tool able to detect potential terrorists or concealed contraband hidden from view, using only the most 

basic tools of common sense at one end of the leash and amazing 

sense of smell at the other end. 

It is important to note that our canine teams have a special 

niche in our border enforcement strategy and is so far unchallenged by any competing technology. No machine can match the 

speed, accuracy and flexibility of a canine team searching for hidden narcotic, humans, currency, explosives or pests in the hectic 

environment that exists in airports, seaports, land ports or border 

patrol checkpoints. 

For example, at border ports, the canine team can examine a vehicle in five to 6 minutes. Even a cursory search by a CBP officer 

without a canine would require at least 20 minutes. Canines can 

check packages in a fraction of the time needed by mail examiners. 

A canine team can process 400 or 500 packages in approximately 

20 minutes to 30 minutes. 

For all their strengths, canine teams also have their limitations. 

Canine teams are also partnerships bonding one human and one 

animal. The strength of that partnership makes them effective, but 

canines and humans are live creatures and not interchangeable 

machine parts. 

That is, handlers and canines are not instantly interchangeable 

with other handlers and other canines. No part of CBP works harder or achieves more spectacular results than our enthusiastic, energetic effective canine teams. As canine handlers would tell you, this 

is not a job, it is a passion. 

Any factor that can effect a human or a canine, including heat, 

cold, fatigue, illness or age, can affect canine team performance. 

CBP’s canine program is well known in the community as the 

benchmark by which other canine programs are measured. 

During fiscal year 2004, Customs and Border Protection signed 

a memorandum agreement with the United States Coast Guard. 
9

Under this MOA, CBP has already trained explosive dogs for the 

U.S. Coast Guard, and CBP stands ready to train all future Coast 

Guard narcotic and explosive detector dog teams. 

Throughout 2005, CBP’s canine enforcement program will continue to work with other federal law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies to develop training strategies and protocols based on realworld threats and intelligence trends. 

Most notable were CBP’s sustained cooperative efforts with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Transportation Security Administration and the United States Coast Guard. 

CBP recognized canine teams serve in an important role in 

CBP’s enforcement operations. CBP is continuously evaluating the 

efficiency of all its tools and making informed choices about the 

right mix of personnel, technology, equipment and infrastructure. 

Based on CBP’s recent review of canine operations and canine 

team training, it is certain that canine teams will continue to play 

an important role in CBP for the foreseeable future. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy 

to answer any of your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Titus follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEE TITUS

Good Morning, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meek, Members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the training of canine teams within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Committee for holding this 

hearing on canine teams, helping us to bring attention to the accomplishments of 

this important program and the issues facing the program, to the forefront. 

CBP’s canine law enforcement program—one of several such Department of 

Homeland Security canine programs that both protects life and property and contributes to the Department’s law enforcement and anti-terrorism missions—is the 

largest federal canine law enforcement program in the United States. CBP has 

trained and deployed thousands of canine teams in support of our anti-terrorism 

and traditional missions over the years. Working together at and between our Nation’s official ports of entry, our canine teams are a critical component in CBP’s layered approach to border protection and our ability to secure our border, protect our 

homeland and defend against the threats posed by potential terrorists, explosives, 

chemical weapons, illegal aliens, narcotics, and harmful agricultural pests and products. 

The canine enforcement program is responsible for a significant proportion of narcotic seizures made by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry, checkpoints, and between official ports of entry, accounting for more than 11,600 narcotic 

seizures totaling over 1,804,196 pounds of narcotics in FY 2004. The canine enforcement program was also responsible for detecting 40,296 concealed humans and the 

seizures of U.S. currency worth $33 million in FY 2004. During FY 2004 the canine 

enforcement program was accountable for over 68,512 Quarantine Material Interceptions of plant products and over 17,956 Quarantine Material Interceptions of animal products with a combined weight of 6,552 pounds. 

Beginning next month, CBP canine team training will be realigned and consolidated under CBP’s Office of Training and Development. It is important to note that 

operational control in the field will be retained by the Offices of Field Operations 

and Border Patrol. This consolidation of canine training is a major step for CBP toward our goal of forging a single, unified border enforcement agency for the United 

States and gaining efficiencies wherever possible. It is a good fit, and it makes 

sense; CBP’s Office of Training and Development already manages most of CBP’s 

training, including basic and advanced training for CBP Officers at the ports of 

entry and Border Patrol 

Agents in between the ports. The merging of the canine training program will not 

only contribute to the efficiency of the training program but will also ultimately contribute to operational efficiency in that the training nomenclature and training processes will be unified as appropriate. Migration of the CBP Canine Training program 

toward common language and training processes will enhance the ability of Office 
10

of Border Patrol or Office of Field Operations Canine Teams to jointly respond to 

major threats or initiatives. 

CBP has invested a lot of time and effort in examining how best to manage its 

two legacy canine team programs. Over a period of several months, subject matter 

experts from the Office of Field Operations and the Office of Border Patrol as well 

as other senior staff from throughout CBP, examined all aspects of CBP’s canine 

programs and identified a number of best practices from across our agency. Under 

CBP’s new model, operators retain control of canine field operations, and training 

assets are consolidated under a single canine team training program. As a result, 

CBP’s capacity to train canine teams will increase, and canine team training will 

be improved by promulgating state-of-the-art training techniques and the best practices that evolved in both historically separate training programs. 

Currently, CBP has approximately 1,187 canine teams deployed around the country. Our K–9 teams consist of 50% human detection/narcotic teams, approximately 

40% are narcotic detection teams, and the remaining teams are other disciplines. 

CBP estimates that its new consolidated training program will train 246 teams in 

FY 2006, expandable to some extent with the addition of resources. 

Although, CBP’s canine teams came from legacy agencies, all of the teams receive 

formal training and certification through fully mature, highly respected courses of 

instruction. Canine teams are trained, certified and deployed in one or more detection disciplines: concealed human detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, 

detection of currency, cadaver detection, detection of prohibited agricultural products, open field tracking and trailing and the detection of chemicals associated with 

weapons of mass destruction. 

All canine enforcement teams are certified prior to field deployment; are subject 

to regular training maintenance requirements, and undergo annual performance 

evaluations to maintain certification of their detection capability. CBP maintains accurate records on the performance of each team, and CBP canine teams answer to 

the same rules, regulations and supervisory chain-of-command as the rest of the 

operational workforce. 

Each supervisor exercising control over canine enforcement teams is required to 

observe detector dog performance during employment and proficiency training. Supervisors responsible for canine enforcement teams ensure that each officer conducts 

mandatory proficiency training. 

Canine Teams assigned to airports and seaports examine vessels, baggage, cargo, 

mail, and passengers. Teams stationed at land border crossings devote their time 

to examining vehicles and merchandise entering the United States. Canine teams 

can be utilized to search for a trained odor in most any area imaginable. During 

every workday, canine teams conduct training exercises to enhance the dog’s performance in the work environment. Canine teams are a wonderful tool, able to detect potential terrorists and concealed contraband hidden from view, using only the 

most basic of tools, common sense at one end of the leash and an amazing sense 

of smell at the other end. 

It is also important to note that our canine teams have a special niche in our border enforcement strategy, a niche that so far is unchallenged by any competing technology. No machine can match the speed, accuracy and flexibility of a canine team 

searching for hidden narcotics, humans, currency, explosives, or pests in the hectic 

environment that exists in airports, seaports, land ports or Border Patrol checkpoints. For example, at border ports a canine team can examine a vehicle in 5 to 

6 minutes. Even a cursory search by a CBP Officer without a canine would require 

at least 20 minutes. Canines can check packages in a fraction of the time needed 

by mail examiners. A canine team can process 400 to 500 packages in approximately 

30 minutes. 

For all their strengths, canine teams also have limitations. Canine teams are also 

partnerships bonding one human and one animal. The strength of that partnership 

makes them effective; but canines and humans are live creatures and not interchangeable machine parts. That is, handlers and canines are not instantly interchangeable with other handlers and other canines. No part of CBP works harder 

or achieves more spectacular results than our enthusiastic, energetic, and effective 

canine teams. As canine handlers will tell you, this is not a job, it’s a passion. Any 

factor that can affect a human or a canine, including heat, cold, fatigue, illness or 

age can affect canine team performance. 

CBP’s Canine program is well known in the canine community as the benchmark 

that other canine programs are measured. During FY 2004, Customs and Border 

Protection signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the United States 

Coast Guard. Under this MOA, CBP stands ready to train all future Coast Guard 

narcotic and explosive detector dog teams. Throughout 2005 the CBP’s Canine Enforcement Program continued to work with other federal law enforcement and intel-
11

ligence agencies to develop training strategies and protocols based on real-world 

threats and intelligence trends. Most notable were CBP’s sustained cooperative efforts with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Transportation and Security 

Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. 

CBP recognizes canine teams serve an important role in CBP’s enforcement operations, but CBP is continuously evaluating the efficacy of all its tools, and making 

informed choices about the right mix of personnel, technology, equipment, and infrastructure. Based on CBP’s recent review of canine operations and canine team training, it is certain that canine teams will continue to play an important role in CBP 

for the foreseeable future. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any 

of your questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Titus. 

The Chair would once again remind the witnesses that your full 

statement can be submitted for the record. We just ask you to give 

us a synopsis in 5 minutes or less, because we really want to get 

to questions. You know a lot of answers that we would like to 

probe. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. David Kontny, Director of the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program at the Transportation Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, for his statement. 

Mr. Kontny? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID KONTNY 

Mr. KONTNY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Representative Meek 

and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss our efforts relating to the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program. 

Explosive detection canine teams are a proven, reliable and costeffective solution to the detection of explosives. They form a vital 

component in our system of systems to detect and deter against 

terrorist acts upon our nation’s transportation systems. 

One key advantage of deploying canines is that this is a flexible, 

omnimodal capability. The canine teams could move throughout 

the system and they can also post at multiple points during periods 

that vary from shift and day by day. 

This variability in locations and times for the use of canine 

teams adds an important element of unpredictability to enhance security. 

TSA has worked aggressively to expand the explosive detection 

capabilities in the civil aviation environment by doubling capacity 

since the September 11th attacks. 

Currently, TSA deploys 345 detection canine teams at 66 of the 

nation’s busiest airports. With our continuing expansion, we expect 

by the end of the year 420 canine teams will be authorized at 82 

airports around the country. 

TSA is also working to greatly expand the use of explosive detection canine teams in the mass transit environment, especially in 

light of the March 2004 attacks in Madrid and the July 2005 bombings in London. 

Since 1998, we have partnered with the Metropolitan Atlanta 

Rapid Transit Authority to deploy teams there, and we are pleased 

to announce that we have selected an additional 10 transit and 

light rail systems to receive three TSA-certified detection canine 

teams each, for a total of 30 teams. 
12

TSA is currently in the final stages of signing cooperative agreements with these mass transit and light rail systems which outline 

the terms and conditions under which they will participate. 

Partnership with stakeholders, especially law enforcement and 

transportation authorities where TSA-certified explosive detection 

canine teams are deployed, is key to the program’s success. Each 

canine team is composed of a dog provided by TSA and a handler 

who is actually employed by the local law enforcement agency or 

transportation authority. 

TSA enters into a cooperative agreement with the local law enforcement and transportation authorities under which TSA provide 

the dog, associated training of the handler, explosive training aids 

and technical assistance at no cost to the participating agency. 

In turn, the local jurisdiction agrees to utilize TSA canine teams 

at least 80 percent of the time in the transportation environment 

and to maintain a minimum of three certified teams available for 

around-the-clock incident response. 

TSA also provides monetary reimbursement for the local jurisdic- tion in the amount of $40,000 per canine team per year to help defray costs such as provision of proper kennel facilities, vehicles to 

transport the canines, and veterinary care for the canines as well 

as a portion of the handler’s salary. 

Prior to actual deployment, canines and their handlers undergo 

an extensive training course at the TSA Explosives Detection Canine Handler Course located with the Department of Defense Military Working Dog School at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. 

During the 10-week-long course, handlers develop handler skills, 

learn about explosives handling, safety and transportation requirements and explosives contamination issues while operating in their 

environment and become familiar with the administrative requirements of the program, including proper use of online applications 

designed to monitor day-to-day canine performance. 

Once a team graduates from the initial training course, the team 

is given an initial certification and an assigned airport. Each newly 

deployed canine team must then complete a 14-day training mission in the operational environment. 

Training does not stop upon graduation and initial certification. 

The teams undergo several hours of recurrent proficiency training 

each week in their operational environment. The results of each 

training exercise are recorded in the TSA canine Web site and are 

reviewed by TSA headquarters staff for compliance. 

TSA also requires that each team go through an extensive annual certification process conducted onsite in an operational environment. The certification is one of the most rigorous operational 

tests administered and is designed to evaluate the team’s ability to 

perform the day-to-day mission of securing the nation’s transportation system. 

The high standards we have set and the mechanisms which we 

put in place ensure that proper training, certification and oversight 

of the canine teams have enabled the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program to become recognized as a leader in the 

canine community with whom other federal agencies, such as the 

Federal Protective Service, United States Coast Guard and Cus-
13

toms and Border Protection and their counterparts from abroad, 

are eager to partner. 

TSA greatly appreciates the funding that Congress has provided 

to support the efforts I have described above in the airport and 

mass terminal environment. 

In addition, Congress also has provided funding this fiscal year 

to support our efforts in the air cargo area, which include, among 

other things, an analysis of an operational test and evaluation of 

TSA-certified canine teams’ ability to detect explosives in various 

cargo and mail configurations and the installation of a new cargo 

training lab in San Antonio, Texas. 

For 2006, the president’s budget requests $19 million to continue 

support of the program in the airport environment. TSA is eager 

to work with Congress to ensure the explosive detection canine programs relating to air cargo and mass transit will continue to be 

adequately supported. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek and other members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be 

pleased at this time to answer any of your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Kontny follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID KONTNY

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you with my colleagues from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) to discuss the use of canines in deterring, 

detecting, and preventing potential terrorist attacks. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administers the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP), one of the largest explosives 

detection canine programs in the Federal government, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD). The purpose of this program is to deter and detect the introduction of explosives devices into the transportation system. TSA has worked aggressively to expand canine explosives detection capabilities in the civil aviation environment by doubling capacity since the September 11 attacks. While these efforts 

will continue, we are also working to expand our capabilities in other modes of 

transportation. TSA recognizes that canine teams are one of our most mobile explosives detection tools and is working steadfastly to take full advantage of the multifaceted capabilities that canine teams provide. 

Currently TSA has deployed 345 explosives detection canine teams at 66 of the 

Nation’s busiest airports (Category X and Category I) and one mass transit system 

(Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)). Our on-going Phase III 

expansion within the aviation sector will bring this total to 82 airports and 420 canine teams. These teams are deployed in support of day-to-day activities within the 

airport and mass transit environment (MARTA) to search aircraft, vehicles, terminals, warehouses (cargo), checked baggage, and subway systems. 

Each canine team is composed of one dog provided by TSA and one handler employed by the local law enforcement or transportation authority that has volunteered and partnered to participate with the NEDCTP. Under a Cooperative Agreement executed with each local law enforcement or transportation authority with 

whom TSA has agreed to provide certified canines, the local jurisdiction agrees to 

utilize TSA-certified canine teams at least 80% of the time in the transportation environment and to maintain a minimum of three TSA-certified canine teams available around-the-clock for incident response. The remaining 20% of the time allows 

local agencies to use these resources to execute other community activities such as 

response to bomb threats, searches for high profile events, and other law enforcement activities that would require the use of an explosives detection canine team. 

TSA provides the dog, associated training of the handler, explosives training aids, 

and technical assistance at no cost to the participating agency and provides monetary reimbursement to the local jurisdiction, in the amount of $40,000 per canine 

team per year to help defray costs such as the provision of proper kennel facilities, 

vehicles to transport canine teams, and veterinary care for the canines, as well as 

a portion of the handlers’ salaries. 
14

The NEDCTP supports an extensive infrastructure in order to accomplish required training of explosives detection canine teams and to monitor their performance. The program requirements, which include an intensive training regimen, periodic evaluation, and annual certification, are essential to assuring quality control 

over the program. The high standards that we have set and maintained and the 

mechanisms we have put in place to ensure thorough oversight have enabled the 

NEDCTP to become recognized as a leader in the canine community with whom 

other Federal agencies and our counterparts from abroad are eager to partner. 

Handlers and canines undergo initial training at the TSA Explosives Detection 

Canine Handler Course co-located at the DOD Military Working Dog School, at 

Lackland Air Force Base, in San Antonio, TX. Under this arrangement, TSA has 

shared use of U.S. Air Force training facilities and the United States Army Veterinarian Medical facilities. TSA controls the course curriculum and the certification 

requirements of the teams to meet TSA-certification standards. This results in a tremendous cost savings for TSA. The training course and facilities in San Antonio are 

considered to be the ‘‘Center of Excellence’’ for canine training. 

TSA has adopted a three-prong approach to canine procurement in order to ensure an adequate number of canines are available for training and subsequent deployment. This three-prong approach includes partnering with DOD during canine 

‘‘buy trips’’, use of U.S. canine vendors, and the TSA Puppy Program. The TSA 

Puppy Program is a direct result of our consultation with the Australian government and is modeled after the successful Australian Customs Service National 

Breeding Program. The Puppy Program could not be accomplished without the support of the San Antonio and Austin Texas communities as each of the puppies are 

placed in a foster home with local community members. I would like to publicly acknowledge their outstanding support to this program. In addition, as a reminder of 

the legacy of the victims of the 9/11 attacks and our continued efforts in the fight 

against terrorism, each puppy is named after a victim of those attacks. 

The initial training of the handler and canine consists of a 10-week training 

course, during which handlers develop handler skills; learn about explosives handling, safety and transportation requirements, and explosives contamination issues 

within the operating environment; and become familiar with administrative requirements of the program, including proper use of on-line applications designed to monitor day-to-day canine performance. Once a team graduates from the initial training 

course, the team is given an initial certification at an assigned airport. Each newly 

deployed canine team must then complete a 14-day training mission in the operating environment before given full certification. 

Training does not stop upon graduation and initial certification. The teams undergo several hours of recurrent proficiency training each week in their operational environment, which includes all the smells and distractions associated with a busy 

transportation system. This training is ‘‘objective based’’ where the handler/trainer 

must set a training problem up that enhances the team’s capabilities or is used to 

correct a minor discrepancy that was noted during an evaluation or previous training scenario. The training is conducted utilizing canine training aids procured and 

prepared by TSA, which characterize real threats. The results of each training exercise are recorded in the TSA Canine Web Site (CWS) and are reviewed by TSA 

headquarters staff for compliance. 

TSA also requires each team to go through an intensive annual certification process. These certifications are conducted on site in an operational environment within 

a three-four day period. The certification is one of the most rigorous operational 

tests administered and is designed to evaluate the team’s ability to perform their 

day-to-day mission of securing the nation’s transportation system. 

For FY 05, TSA has been appropriated $22 million to administer the NEDCTP. 

Within this amount, $17 million is dedicated to steadily increase the number of 

teams deployed at airports. As indicated earlier, we currently have 345 explosives 

detection canine teams deployed at 66 airports and one mass transit system, and 

we are continuing our progress to attain an authorized strength of 420 canine teams 

deployed at 82 airports by the end of this calendar year. 

TSA also recognizes the importance of dedicating explosives detection canine 

teams to provide a timely and mobile response option to threats arising in other 

modes of transportation, especially in light of the March, 2004, attacks in Madrid 

and the July, 2005, bombings in London. Within the $22 million appropriated for 

FY 05, $2 million is dedicated to supporting expansion of the NEDCTP into additional mass transit/light rail systems. Currently TSA is working towards providing 

ten mass transit systems with three TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams 

each, for a total of 30 teams. The ten systems have been identified based on a comparative analysis of the size of the systems according to passenger ridership, location of the nation’s critical infrastructure in the transit sector, threats in the transit 
15

sector, and other security criteria. Additional information on this initiative was provided to potential participants at the Mass Transit Stakeholders Summit held on 

August 10, 2005. TSA is in continuing discussions with stakeholders to finalize the 

terms and conditions under which the transit agencies would participate in the 

NEDCTP. These agreements would closely mirror those that TSA has entered into 

with airports. 

Explosives detection canine teams bring technical capability, mobility, and flexibility to security—attributes essential in protecting network systems. The canine 

teams can move throughout the system, and they can also post at multiple points 

during time periods that vary by shift and by day. This variability in locations and 

times for use of canine teams adds an important element of unpredictability to enhance security. TSA is working to take full advantage of the flexible, omni-modal 

capability that canine teams afford. We have worked with all participants in the 

NEDCTP to acclimate their teams to various transportation systems that they may 

be asked to support so that teams can be rapidly re-deployed to other transportation 

sectors should threat conditions deem such measures appropriate. This has enabled 

TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams to be shifted as a Rapid Deployment 

Force to support security efforts at mass transit systems, bus terminals, and general 

aviation locations during National Special Security Events, including the G–8 Summit, both national political conventions in 2004, and the Inauguration festivities. 

In addition, the FY 05 appropriations contained $3 million to support TSA canine 

explosives detection activities relating to air cargo. In 2004, TSA conducted an Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) of a TSA-certified canine team’s ability to detect explosives in various cargo and mail configurations. The OT&E concluded in 

August, 2004, and the preliminary results were promising. TSA is further analyzing 

the data from the OT&E and will make recommendations on whether explosives detection canine teams should be incorporated, along with other systems and technologies, into the screening of cargo and mail transported on passenger aircraft. As 

a result of the OT&Es, the NEDCTP has partnered with our Aviation Cargo section 

to develop a comprehensive list of activities to enhance canine detection capabilities 

and deployment options within the cargo environment. One of these activities is our 

new Cargo Training Lab in San Antonio, which is designed to replicate a cargo 

warehouse environment. 

For FY 06, the President’s budget includes $19 million, which will permit continued support of the NEDCTP in the airport environment. TSA greatly appreciates 

Congress’ assistance in funding the NEDCTP, particularly those activities relating 

to mass transit and air cargo. As indicated earlier, canine teams will be deployed 

at 10 transit systems in the very near future. TSA will work with Congress to ensure that explosives detection canine programs relating to air cargo and mass transit will continue to be adequately supported. The TSA Canine Support Branch currently has the physical capacity to train 108 new canine teams during each calendar 

year. 

Explosives detection canine teams are a proven, reliable, and cost-effective solution for the detection of explosives, and they form a key component of the Department’s threat-based risk management approach to homeland security. In close partnership with airport and other stakeholder operators, TSA has worked to steadily 

increase the number of teams available to address the threat of explosives being introduced into the transportation sector. While this work will continue, special emphasis is now being placed to rapidly increase the number of canine teams that are 

deployed to modes other than aviation and to maximize the flexible, multi-modal capability that canine teams afford. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security Rapid Deployment Force for mass transit canine and our recent efforts to cosponsor regional training sessions with the ATFE are examples of Federal agencies 

working together to leverage both training and operational resources. The recent 

completion of the TSA Canine Explosives Storage and Characterization Facility and 

the centralized procurement, packaging and delivery of canine training aids are 

other examples of departmental leveraging. In addition, TSA has partnered with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Institute of Justice to sponsor the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detection Guidelines to enhance the 

performance of detector dog teams. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meek, and other Members of the Subcommittee, this 

concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased at this time to answer any 

questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Kontny. 

The Chair now recognizes Special Agent Terry Bohan, Chief of 

the National Canine Training and Operations Support Branch at 
16

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the Department of Homeland Security, for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY BOHAN 

Chief BOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Meek, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the men and women of ATF. 

ATF has over 500 canine handler teams deployed with federal, 

state, local and law enforcement agencies. We have trained explosives detection canines, or EDCs, for the FBI, the U.S. Marshals 

Service, the IRS, FEMA and 16 foreign countries. ATF has placed 

trained canines in 41 states and the Virgin Islands. 

The trademark of ATF’s canine program is the exclusive use of 

Labrador Retrievers. ATF acquires the canines from various guide 

dog foundations and trains the animals as EDCs. The program also 

combines ATF’s specialized experience in explosives investigations 

with the knowledge of our forensic chemists and accredited national laboratory. 

The annual certification that our canines must pass has been 

independently validated by Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Our 

canines also routinely participate in in-service training and evaluations. 

ATF’s canine training facility is located in rural Virginia with the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility. This year ATF will 

train approximately 26 foreign canine teams and 36 teams for federal, state and local agencies. 

ATF is reimbursed by the State Department’s Antiterrorism Assistance Program for all costs associated with training foreign 

countries. U.S. agencies receive their canines and training at no 

charge in exchange for assisting ATF when needed. 

ATF’s EDC program supports multiple missions working closely 

with other federal, state and local agencies to ensure national security. ATF is often called upon to deploy a large number of canine 

teams to both national security events and other venues. 

ATF canines also support ATF’s mission in enforcing criminal 

statutes, combating explosives and firearms violence. From January of 2000 to December of 2003, there were nearly 3,000 bombings 

in the United States, causing 334 injuries, 51 deaths and nearly 

$27 million in damage. 

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2004, ATF canine teams have 

handled over 800 deployments to prevent or investigate terrorism 

or violent crimes, including providing assistance to the Iraqi police 

service and the U.S. military in Iraq. 

Since September 11th, 2001, the need for a national standard for 

EDCs became more important. ATF developed a national odor recognition standard in 1996 at the direction of Congress. ATF has 

been working with various organizations to more widely implement 

those standards. 

Following ATF’s move to the Department of Justice under the 

Homeland Security Act, then–Attorney General John Ashcroft 

issued a directive regarding explosives jurisdiction which, among 

other things, directed that as soon as practicable all Justice Department components that use explosives detection canines are to 

use only canines certified by ATF. 
17

ATF’s national odor recognition testing, or NORT, is a critical aspect of fulfilling the attorney general’s directive. More than 50 percent of all law enforcement canine teams are not associated with 

a federal canine training program or certification. In fact, there is 

no consistent definition of what even constitutes an explosives detection canine or training. 

Furthermore, the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory 

Board has acknowledged the need for testing of EDCs and has 

asked ATF to address this issue. ATF is in a unique position to address this public safety issue, and we hope to make the test available to all canine teams in the future. 

NORT will develop and nurture collaborative partnerships 

through training with other agencies, all of whom are, in one form 

or another, responsible for protecting the public against the threat 

of violent crime and terrorism. 

Finally, ATF continues to combat terrorism and ensure public 

safety by supporting the efforts of other agencies currently that use 

EDCs that are not trained by ATF. During this past year, ATF has 

provided training to non–ATF trained canines by holding seminars 

and training sessions. 

Additionally, ATF has provided training on peroxide explosives 

for Washington, D.C.-area canines and at this moment is conducting the same training in New Jersey for canines of the New 

York City area. 

We continue to work on other training issues such as safe handling of explosives and canine deployment techniques to improve 

the human side of the equation and increase public safety in the 

process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The statement of Chief Bohan follows:]

PREPARED STTEMENT OF TERRY BOHAN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Meek, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the men and women 

of ATF and ATF’s National Canine Training and Operations Support Branch. 

By way of background, ATF has been training canines since 1984, dating from our 

relationship with the Connecticut State Police and the training of the first 

accelerant detection canine, ‘‘Nellie.’’ Since 1995, ATF has trained 36 classes of explosives detection canines at our National Canine Training Center in Front Royal, 

Virginia. Currently, we have deployed over 500 explosives detection canines worldwide with State, local, Federal, and foreign law enforcement agencies. We have 

trained explosives detection canines for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, other government agencies, and 16 foreign countries through the 

State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program. Training canines for other 

Federal, State, local and foreign law enforcement agencies is a major component of 

our mission, which in turn supports our Strategic Goals of protecting the public and 

reducing violent crime. 

ATF’s explosives detection canines training methodology was developed and is 

overseen by ATF’s forensic chemists and our nationally accredited explosives lab. 

The testing of the methodology has been independently validated by the Department 

of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories. It is estimated that there are more 

than 19,000 known explosives compositions worldwide. This number makes it impossible to train a canine on all these compositions individually. However, the vast 

majority of explosives are composed of a relatively small number of explosive chemicals or ingredients. Because of this, ATF trains on five basic families of explosive 

chemicals, enabling ATF explosives detection canines to detect a very wide range 

of explosives formulations. This ensures that the canines can detect explosives com-
18

pounds to which they have never previously been exposed. For example, in the case 

of water gel or emulsion type explosives, whether the explosive is Tovex® Austin 

Emulex, or any of several thousand commercial blasting or improvised explosive 

ANFO mixtures of this type, the one common ingredient is ammonium nitrate. 

Rather than concentrate just on individual brands, which may contain proprietary 

formulas, by training the canine to detect ammonium nitrate, we can, in effect, 

cover the whole family of products which might contain ammonium nitrate. In fact, 

during the final certification, the canines are tested on some explosive materials 

they have not seen in training. Moreover, ATF systematically trains canines on peroxide explosives, which have been used in several terrorist attacks. 

To ensure the canine’s continued high level of performance, ATF hosts a mandatory annual recertification/training seminar for each U.S.-based ATF-trained canine 

team (handler and canine). During this recertification, the team’s proficiency is tested and the handler’s extensive training log for the previous year is reviewed. The 

canine teams are also continually evaluated for their operational proficiency by ATF 

during in-service training sessions. 

While other breeds of canines may possess the temperament and qualities for explosive detection, ATF only uses the Labrador retriever. We have found that they 

are a hearty, intelligent breed that is readily adaptable to changing environments 

and they possess a gentle disposition which allows for multiple teams to work in 

close proximity to each other. This allows for teams to work in crowds and around 

children, for example, which we find to be highly complementary to ATF’s diverse 

and worldwide mission. 

ATF obtains its canines from guide dog foundations. Volunteers called ‘‘puppy 

raisers’’ keep the canines in their homes from 8 weeks to 14 months of age. These 

families give their time and love to the puppies so they can be properly socialized 

and acclimated to the family environment. The families housebreak the canines, expose them to real world environments, and ensure that they receive all their vaccinations. Occasionally, however, a canine does not meet the requirements of a guide 

dog. Undesirable traits in a guide dog, such as curiosity and eagerness, are precisely 

the qualities that ATF seeks for an explosives detection canine. The guide dog organization then notifies ATF, and ATF trainers examine the canine to identify its potential as an explosives detection canine. The excellent quality of canines procured 

and the training methodology ATF uses have resulted in a proven track record of 

a 7—to 9—year working life of the canine. Throughout the canine’s working career 

and beyond in retirement, the canine resides in the handler’s home as a trusted 

partner and family member. 

The ATF Canine Training Facility and Kennel are located in Front Royal, Virginia, on the grounds of the 250-acre U.S. Customs and Border Protection Canine 

Training Facility. The 14,000-square-foot training building allows for climate controlled, year-round training. The state-of-the art kennel can accommodate 100 canines and incorporates the latest technology in kennel design. ATF’s canine training 

program trains both explosives detection and accelerant detection canines. In addition to the basic canine and handler training programs that occur throughout the 

year, this facility is used as the site of annual recertification training for all ATFtrained canines operating domestically. This facility also provides an appropriate location for the continuing development and enhancement of testing, operational and 

tactical protocols for our canine teams. 

This year, ATF will train approximately 26 foreign explosives detection canines 

for the State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance program and 34 such teams 

for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. The student handler classes 

are mixed to foster greater relationships and collaboration among domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies. Domestically, ATF evaluates applicant State and 

local agencies to ensure that they have the need for and the means to physically 

support a canine/handler team when selecting students for the program. Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement trainees attend training and receive a canine at 

no charge to their agency. Foreign law enforcement agencies receive canines through 

a reimbursable agreement between ATF and the State Department’s Anti-Terrorism 

Assistance program. Critical in this arrangement is the agreement made between 

ATF and the student’s agency that the agency receiving the training will assist ATF 

with investigations, when called upon, for a period of 5 years. In fact, foreign ATFtrained canine/handler teams responded to assist with security for the 2002 Salt 

Lake City and 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, as well as Olympics held in other 

countries. 

While a number of Federal agencies utilize explosives detection canines, each is 

unique to its own particular missions, such as protecting the Nation’s airports or 

enforcing border security. ATF’s explosives detection canines program supports multiple missions and works in an impressive variety of venues: from scouring bomb 
19

scenes to assisting in search warrant executions; and supporting State and local law 

enforcement with canine teams for major sporting events. ATF is also able to deploy 

large numbers of canines, when requested, to National Special Security Events and 

other major gatherings, such as the G–8 Conference, Presidential inaugurations, 

Super Bowls, and the World Series. ATF canines, of course, also support ATF’s mission in enforcing criminal statutes combating explosives and firearms violence. From 

January 2000 to December 2003, there were nearly 3,000 bombings in the United 

States, with 334 injuries, 51 deaths, and nearly $27 million in damage. Many times 

ATF explosives detection canines or accelerant canine detection of evidence in explosives, firearms, or arson investigations has contributed to successful prosecutions. 

These canines are stationed throughout the United States in ATF offices, local police 

department and bomb squads, other Federal agencies, and foreign government agencies. Since the beginning of FY 2004, ATF canine teams have handled over 800 deployments domestically and internationally to prevent or investigate terrorism and 

violent crimes, including providing assistance to the Iraqi Police Service and the 

U.S. military in Iraq. ATF explosives detection canines are providing support to 

other U.S. government agencies in Iraq to protect American lives and property. 

In supporting the Department of Justice in its goal of combating terrorism, ATF 

canines have played a significant role. While deployed on missions, ATF canine 

teams have recovered improvised explosive devices, explosives materials, post-blast 

evidence, firearms, shell casings, and ammunition. ATF canine teams have made recoveries and contributed to recent high profile cases such as the Washington, DC, 

area sniper investigations, when an ATF canine team was instrumental in finding 

shell casings. 

With the increased levels of security in the United States since September 11, 

2001, the country has seen a dramatic increase in the number of explosives detection canines being used by law enforcement and private companies. A common question is whether there is a need for national standards for explosives detection canines. In 1996, Congress directed ATF, through the Treasury Secretary, to develop 

national odor recognition standards for explosives detection canines. ATF set interim standards in 1997, and has been working with various organizations since 

then to more widely implement the standards. With ATF’s move to the Department 

of Justice under the Homeland Security Act, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft 

issued a memorandum on August 11, 2004, regarding explosives investigation jurisdiction which, among other things, directed that as soon as practicable, all Justice 

Department components that use explosives detection canines are to use only ATFcertified canines. ATF’s National Odor Recognition Testing (‘‘NORT’’) is a critical aspect of fulfilling the Attorney General’ directive. 

In response to the growing demand nationwide for explosives detection canines, 

as well as concerns about the quality of canines being procured by law enforcement 

agencies from non-governmental sources, ATF is taking steps to provide more assistance to other State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This includes providing training and knowledge to help law enforcement agencies have proficient explosives detection canines and give them the ability to evaluate and rectify shortcoming. 

More than 50 percent of all law enforcement canine teams are not associated with 

a recognized Federal canine training program or certification. There are numerous 

private vendors selling explosives detection canines that have trained those dogs according to a variety of inconsistent standards and under various conditions. In fact, 

there is no consistent definition as to what even constitutes an explosives detection 

canine. Because of this lack of consistency, and for safety reasons, the National 

Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board has stated that they would like every explosives detection canines working in conjunction with a bomb squad in the United 

States to have passed a standard certification. ATF is in a unique position to address this public safety issue. The formal implementation of ATF’s NORT, backed 

by hard science in the form of chemistry and administered by experienced trainers, 

will greatly enhance public safety as well as help validate the capabilities of explosives detection canines being used nationally and internationally as antiterrorist 

tools. Informal testing began earlier this year with the use of non-ATF trained explosives detection canines in order to assess how they would perform. These initial 

tests were promising, and as a result, additional EDCs were tested. Based on these 

results, ATF offered a successful pilot NORT at our Canine Training Center on September 20, 2005, with further testing scheduled in the future. 

The NORT will be of tremendous benefit to Federal, State, local, tribal, and foreign explosives canine programs that choose to participate. The NORT initiative will 

allow for the continued enhancement of explosives investigation expertise within the 

law enforcement community. Additionally, NORT will both develop and nurture collaborative partnerships through training with other agencies, all of whom are, in 
20

one form or another, responsible for protecting the public against the threat of violent crime and terrorism. This is truly government at its best. 

Finally, ATF continues to combat terrorism and ensure public safety by supporting the efforts of other agencies that currently lack ATF-trained canines but utilize explosives detection canines. During this past year ATF has offered and delivered training to non-ATF trained canines, by holding seminars and training sessions 

during meetings of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators (including training on dangerous peroxide explosives). In August of 2005, 

ATF hosted a training day for Washington, D.C., area canines for the purpose of 

exposing the teams to peroxide explosives. As we speak, ATF is delivering peroxide 

explosives training to canine teams in New York City and will conduct the same 

training next week for the United States Capitol Police. We have also scheduled explosives safety training in FY 2006 for canine teams to expose them to a wide array 

of live explosives, explosive products, and detonators. We also will cover safe handling of explosives, improving the human side of the equation and increasing public 

safety in the process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you have.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Bohan. And I want to correct an 

error. You are with the Department of Justice, not the Department 

of Homeland Security as I stated in your introduction. 

I would like to start off with a few questions. How many dogs 

did you say that you all train in ATF a year? 

Chief BOHAN. This year, we will train 26 teams for foreign countries and 36 canine teams for state and local agencies. 

Mr. ROGERS. So 36 for domestic use. 

Chief BOHAN. For domestic use, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does that meet the demand? Is there more of a demand than that for your canine teams? 

Chief BOHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. How much more of a demand, just within 

your department? 

Chief BOHAN. I know we have a backlog in requests. Our schools 

are full through this next fiscal year and into the next.

ATTACHMENT #1

Agency note: We have 68 qualified applicants pending from Federal, State and 

local law enforcement agencies, and can accommodate 50 of those in Fiscal Year 

2006.

Mr. ROGERS. And those are two schools, right? How many schools 

do you have? 

Chief BOHAN. Three schools. 

Mr. ROGERS. Three schools. And I heard you mention the one in 

Virginia. Where are the other two? 

Chief BOHAN. Excuse me, I thought you were talking classes. We 

have one canine training facility. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. And three classes within that school? 

Chief BOHAN. We have scheduled three explosives detection 

courses for this fall. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. But you only have that one facility. 

Chief BOHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. 

And, Mr. Titus, now, you all have your training program in El 

Paso, is that correct? 

Mr. TITUS. Sir, we have two facilities. We do have the Canine 

Enforcement Training Center at Front Royal. That is a 250-acre facility that we own. 
21

Mr. ROGERS. And that is where yours is, Mr. Bohan? 

Chief BOHAN. Yes, sir. We are co-located on Customs and Border 

Protection’s canine facility. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. But you have separate training programs in 

the same facility. 

Chief BOHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

I am sorry, Mr. Titus. You have that one and what else? 

Mr. TITUS. Yes, sir. We have the National Canine Facility in El 

Paso, Texas, as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. And I heard you state earlier that you have 

trained 1,189 dogs, or that is how many you have in service now? 

Mr. TITUS. That is how many we have in service, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many have you trained through your two facilities? 

Mr. TITUS. Between the two facilities, we have probably trained 

a little over 200, 220 this year. And for fiscal year 2006 we are 

looking at about 230. 

Mr. ROGERS. And that is your capacity each year to turn out. 

Mr. TITUS. That is what we are training for CBP. We do have 

some additional dogs we are going to be training for state and 

locals, and we are doing some training, I believe next month, for 

the Brazilian federal police. We are training explosive dogs for 

them. 

Mr. ROGERS. You have 1,189 dogs now in use. Does that meet 

your demand with just CBP? 

Mr. TITUS. That gives us a good edge out there as part of our layered enforcement approach for canines out there. We are at 73 

ports of entry and 69 checkpoints. That is what we have today, and 

that is what we are projecting—we are training another 230 for 

next year. 

Of the 1,100 we also have to project how many of those dogs are 

going to retire the upcoming year and how many dogs we may have 

for medical proficiency problems as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Mr. Kontny, how many dogs do you all have in service? 

Mr. KONTNY. Right now, sir, we have 345 teams deployed across 

the country. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is just domestically. 

Mr. KONTNY. That is domestically, sir, and that includes San 

Juan, and we have some over in Hawaii, as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. And how many do you think you need? 

Mr. KONTNY. It depends, sir, on what our expansion is. Obviously, we are going to add the additional 30 teams to the mass 

transit systems, as well. It is predicated upon where we place those 

allocations and the resources we have available to train and deploy 

the teams. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you mentioned 30 teams for mass transit. 

Now, I made reference a little while ago of the fact that here in 

D.C. we are going to have a team stationed. 

Mr. KONTNY. Yes, sir, and that will augment the teams that are 

already here in place. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. I guess my question is, given this new 

entire ́ or foray into mass transit venues, do you see the 30 new 
22

teams meeting that new demand? It seems an ominous challenge 

to me. 

Mr. KONTNY. Sir, that is the initial deployment opportunity we 

had based on the funding that Congress gave us for fiscal year 

2005. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Can you tell me, Mr. Kontny, how you determine which agencies will receive your dogs? 

Mr. KONTNY. Yes, sir. The mass transit systems are based on a 

threat analysis. We do it on a threat basis. It is a model that is 

similar to ODP. We also look at passenger throughput, the amount 

of stations that are at each one of those locations. 

In the aviation sector, we actually look at the passenger throughput, again the threat-based matrix on where those airports are located and how many teams would be responsible to cover that particular airport. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does TSA have any plans to expand their canine 

training capabilities? 

Mr. KONTNY. Right now, sir, we have just expanded it. We actually went from 64 students a year to 108. And we have additional 

capacity to be able to expand slightly more. 

Mr. ROGERS. How quickly can you increase that capacity? 

Mr. KONTNY. Again, we would have to work through our partners 

and with the Department of Defense, but we have allocated some 

space and resources to be able to do that in the future. 

Mr. ROGERS. But you do not know how quickly you could ramp 

up? 

Mr. KONTNY. No, sir, not a specific time frame. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

I see my time is about to expire, but I have got a lot more questions. But I will at this time yield to my friend and colleague, the 

Ranking Member from Florida, Mr. Meek, for any questions he 

may have. 

Mr. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass at this time on my 

questioning so some of the other members can ask their questions. 

If you can come back to me, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, for any questions he may 

have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it looks like we are going to do the—I am 

going to pass until the second panel also. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for any 

questions that she may have. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Let me thank the distinguished chairman. 

Both of us were on a CODEL that was enormously informative. 

And I want to say to the presenters here I do not think there is 

anyone opposing that. I have an enormous respect for the utilization of the canine, the man’s and woman’s best friend, in the service of their country. 

And I ask your indulgence for a moment. I will be here throughout the entire hearing and offer my comments on it. But let me, 

Mr. Chairman, offer some further comments that I think are appropriate at this time. 
23

In fact, let me make the nexus of the utilization of these animals 

in homeland security—that is, that in the search and rescue of 

Hurricane Katrina victims and even survivors the canine units 

have been enormously effective. We have seen the Coast Guard 

being out front. We thank them very much. 

But I think that if you would indulge me again, coming now from 

the region of Hurricane Rita and having just been on the ground 

in some of the most hardest-hit areas—I was invited to go into 

those areas—a number of elected officials—and because of my service on the Homeland Security Commission—Mr. Chairman and the 

ranking member, I really want to make an official request that in 

spite of the committee that is now looking at what happened, I cannot think of a more important responsibility for the Homeland Security Committee than to immediately get moving on this disaster. 

And I say that for this subcommittee having the key responsibility—I might to the ranking member, who has been a leader on 

this issue, and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, ranking member of the full committee—leaders, because we have worked together. 

But let me cry out for those who died, family members who still 

do not have access to corpses, do not know whether the individuals 

are missing or dead. Let me cry out for the people that I went to 

heated buildings, not because it was 100 degrees outside, but because they had no generators, they had no opportunity to reach 

anyone to get generators, and they were the command station. 

Let me reach out for people who had to commandeer a hotel because there was no one to give instructions that this hotel should 

be open so that they could have their emergency center. 

And let me just say, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I really am tired of those who are not on the scene to talk about who 

should have evacuated. Everybody that was able to evacuate tried 

to evacuate. 

But what we do not have in our portfolio is to realize that there 

is always going to be someone left behind. That is a new experience 

for us, because I think Homeland Security was thinking that if we 

organize and we get an evacuation plan, we are just going to be 

moving with all pistols going. 

Some ones are left behind. And so what I confronted were local 

officials with no resources and ability to communicate, no ability to 

get satellite phones, no ability to get generators, no ability to get 

food, no ability to get water, no ability to get ice. 

FEMA personnel on the ground to be commended, flying from all 

over the country. But if I might give you a keystone cops scenario, 

which is why this management—this committee is so vital, why the 

Homeland Security Committee is so vital—because we live with 

this all the time. 

Let me give you the keystone cops. The FEMA personnel saying 

I am in charge of generators but I have got to get the order from 

the state in order to move the generators, even though the county 

judge is in maybe 150 degree temperature, with hospitals not functioning, obviously evacuated, some still left behind. 

People gathering around neighborhoods, if you will, trolling for 

food, trolling for water, trolling for ice, and they can not move it 

because there is nobody to give an order. 
24

Cell phones going dead while we are talking to H–E–B—that 

happens to be a food chain—who is saying I can send you bread 

and water, and those trucks getting lost because all the signage is 

down—so a 30-minute trip may take 1 hour to 2 hours. I wish the 

canines could help us lead them in. 

Mr. Chairman, if there is ever a time now for the new chairman 

and yourself and other subcommittees with our ranking member to 

say we are in charge—and when I say that, I do not say it arrogantly. What I am suggesting to you—I left behind local officials 

who did their best on the evacuation. 

If my city had been hit, I cannot tell you without exaggerating 

the loss of life. Why? Because we had people that were still trying 

to get out as Hurricane Rita was hitting. We had to close freeways 

and say you cannot go up 59 North anymore because it is getting 

too close. 

Obviously, Hurricane Rita went another direction, but, frankly, 

if she had not, we had people on the road—a staff person with two 

children and a wife that I told to get out—32 hours—if anybody’s 

from Texas, from Houston to Fort Worth, 32. 

So therefore, we would have had—what you saw on CNN was 

true. And they would have still been there if Hurricane Rita and/

or Katrina of that magnitude had have come and stayed for a 

while. That is a management question. 

We have a letter that has come to my attention, and I will share 

it with this committee, and I ask unanimous consent to submit it 

into the record, dated September 28th from the secretary of Homeland Security, who is preparing to go forward with his plan for 

something called a preparedness directorate and limiting FEMA to 

be a recovery and—let me get the words correct. 

Let me keep going. I ask the indulgence of the chair. I would just 

simply like to call out what I am seeing here as to what this is 

going go be—including infrastructure, cybersecurity. They are 

going to be something called a recovery unit. And there is something called a preparedness directive. 

Mr. Chairman, this committee should be engaged. Though we are 

not in the business of micromanaging, we have got a crisis here. 

So I simply ask this committee, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, to make the request for us to look closely at what is happening. 

I would almost ask the chairman to get a response from Director 

Paulison, and I will say this as I close. I want to give him a compliment. Director Paulison was accessible. He was new on the job 

but he suffers from the same issue. Who is in charge? 

Maybe the state system is not the best system, because while we 

were asking the state, Mr. Chairman, to open the contraflow lanes, 

they were in a meeting trying to decide whether they could open 

the lanes. And they were in a meeting deciding whether the military was appropriate vehicle to come in to help them evacuate persons. Who was in charge? 

Who is in charge to get ice and water to a county official who 

is calling for it? Who is in charge to release the generators? I am 

not going to blame FEMA on this issue. They were looking for an 

order. No order came through to them. 
25

So let me just put this in the record: I am writing to reiterate 

the department’s strong conviction that our proposal to create a 

consolidated directorate for preparedness will greatly strengthen 

DHS. 

I think we should be looking at that, because it wants to strip 

FEMA from what I think is an appropriate role for FEMA, either 

a leadership cabinet position or certainly a leadership position, 

where they can command the respect with the skilled personnel, 

Mr. Chairman, professionals who know about emergency response, 

such as Mr. Paulison, who is a firefighter of many, many years. 

And I can not imagine that FEMA would simply be a recovery 

entity, throwing all those expert staff persons to the ground. And 

I only say to you that we are still struggling in the region with no 

electricity, schools closed, evacuees still evacuated, Katrina victims 

returning, places like East Texas still inoperable. 

Mr. Chairman, I think Homeland Security has got right now to 

convene meetings and begin the assessment that I think we can do. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. ROGERS. The gentlelady yields back. And with unanimous 

consent, the memo is put into the record. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

McCaul, for any questions he may have for the panelists. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a member of the Texas delegation, I would like to echo some 

of the comments made by the gentlelady from Texas. I know that 

at the appropriate time that this committee, our committee, will 

exercise its oversight responsibilities. 

As a former federal prosecutor, I have worked with BATF personally, firsthand. I have seen the great benefit that the canines 

and canine units have delivered. And I wanted to explore a couple 

other areas of use, if I can. 

Primarily I know they are used for explosives. There is some research out there that canines can now be used to detect biological 

and chemical weapons. As you know, this very capital was under 

a threat after the 9/11 attacks from anthrax and ricin. 

Apparently that is a reality now, that canines can be trained to 

detect that. My first question is does BATF have any, or Homeland 

Security have any, intention to explore that possibility and use canines for that purpose? 

There is also a new age explosive called TATP that was used in 

Israel, has been used by insurgents in Iraq, and I know that detections are difficult for this type of new age explosive. If you could 

comment on that in terms of where are we with using canines to 

detect TATP. 

And then finally, I am on a border state. I know we have sensors 

for radiological items that may come across the border. If you could 

also comment—and this is my last question—on the use of canines 

on the border. 

Chief BOHAN. The peroxide explosives which you refer to are 

something ATF has trained continually and certified on since 2002. 

Currently we are working to make that training available to other 

agencies. 
26

As we speak, we are conducting training right now in New Jersey and the New York City area. So canines, in fact, are successful 

with finding the peroxide explosives. 

As far as the other substances, I would defer to Mr. Titus on 

that. 

Mr. TITUS. Sir, we do have chemical detector dogs in the CBP. 

We have had them for the last couple years. It is a very difficult 

process to teach the dogs. We have developed a lesson plan to do 

that. 

We were very successful when taking the dogs into a laboratory 

environment with the live agent doing a double blind test on the 

dogs and handlers. And therefore, we were able to prove that the 

dogs could detect certain trained odors that we expect in a chemical 

weapon of mass destruction. 

We have just obtained some new machines that we are going to 

be using to take the live agent out into the work field environment 

to expand our research and to make sure that what we say they 

can do in a laboratory environment they can actually do in the field 

environment as well. 

So we do have the chemical dogs out there. We are planning 

more research right now rather than expanding it, to make sure we 

are on the right path. 

And lastly, in regards to TATP, our detector dogs are trained to 

detect triacetone triperoxide. We work very closely with the FBI in 

Quantico. Because it is a highly volatile substance, what we do is 

we go out to Quantico. One of the FBI’s chemists makes it for us. 

And then we run it out their explosive—because of the sensitivity 

of the explosive. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Could you comment on the biological agents, if 

there are canines that are out there that can detect anthrax, for 

instance? Would that would be of use or do you have that capability currently? 

Mr. TITUS. We have explored that. We know that we are comfortable and that we can go down that path if necessary. We have 

not received that direction. 

I would like to point out, though, that as I understand it, with 

the first responder, they would rather know if it is a chemical alert 

or a biological alert. Therefore the term chembio is probably not appropriate. We say it would be a single-focus detector dog. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I have seen the demonstration. I have seen 

the canines detect inactive, inert anthrax, so I know that it is out 

there. 

Lastly, use on the border. Any comments on that? 

Mr. TITUS. We have detector dogs all along the southwest border, 

I would venture to say over 350 dogs from Brownsville, Texas, all 

the way up to San Diego. So we do have dogs out there. 

What our new focus is this fiscal year and the upcoming fiscal 

years is predominantly—our traditional mission has always been 

narcotic detection, and now we are looking at our antiterrorism 

mission. 

And what we are doing is training our—retraining some of our 

detector dogs to detect not only narcotics but also to be able to 

intercept concealed humans inside of vehicles or in these other 
27

types of conveyances, like trains or something like that, coming 

across the border. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Pascrell, for his questions. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

short questions, and then I would like to get into a different matter 

that has not been discussed yet. 

My first question is to Special Agent Bohan, and it is this: Can 

the dogs that are trained in your particular program detect 

unscented explosives? 

Chief BOHAN. Sir, again, the canine can detect what odors are 

available. If, in fact, there is an explosive that has a signature, the 

canines will detect it. Unscented explosives—personally, I am not 

familiar with that. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Kontny, Director Kontny, to what extent 

could dogs be used to close any security gaps as it relates to the 

screening of air cargo? 

Mr. KONTNY. Sir, we have done some testing on that, operational 

test and evaluation was conducted, to look at the different configurations of cargo that we can use. Obviously, we want to take a systematic approach on that, because there are certain types of cargo 

or certain ways that cargo is presented where the dog would be 

beneficial, and there are other ways that the cargo would come 

through, configurations, commodities, that technology would be 

more efficient. 

So I think as a result of our operational tests and evaluations, 

we are looking at which commodities the dogs are doing best and 

how we can actively deploy them in the cargo facilities. 

Mr. PASCRELL. As you know, there has been great discussions 

here—I do not know how great they are, but there have been many 

discussions about air cargo and what our responsibilities will be. 

And I am sure we will get around to that sooner or later. 

Mr. Titus, you are training dogs to be chemical detector dogs, you 

have explosive detector dogs, you have currency detector dogs. You 

have concealed human, narcotic detector dogs, and you have agriculture detector dogs. 

I would like you to tell me if those agricultural detector dogs 

which are trying to find vegetables and foods that are coming into 

this country that have been spoiled or have chemicals on them that 

we do not want to come into this country—I want you to just very 

briefly describe what is happening along those lines. 

And then the second part of my question is are these dogs being 

used to scent the trucks that are coming into this country, 95 percent of which over the Mexican border are not inspected even? I 

mean, I do not know what the heck are in those trucks. You do not 

know it either, do you? 

Mr. TITUS. Sir, just so that I clarify your question, are you referring to knowledge about the agriculture dogs as a whole, and also 

the trucks that come across the border in regards to agriculture or 

other contraband? 

Mr. PASCRELL. First agriculture, and then other contraband, yes. 
28

Mr. TITUS. Okay, sir. We do have agriculture detector dogs, and 

these dogs are trained on five basic odors. That is, apples, mangoes, citrus, beef and pork. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Right. 

Mr. TITUS. And what these dogs are looking for—we do have our 

dogs working in the airport and seaport environment, and they are 

looking primarily at people bringing these prohibited items coming 

across our border. 

It is not just because there may be some chemical sprayed on the 

fruit, but we are looking primarily at, for example, in Florida, if 

you should have a mango come in Miami International Airport, 

which has happened before, and these are infected with certain 

pests, that could actually come into the country and then infect the 

crop down in South Florida and wipe out the— 

Mr. PASCRELL. So your dogs are not used primarily for the trucks 

that are coming across the border. 

Mr. TITUS. We are expanding the program this year. We are 

looking at putting more agriculture detector dogs on the southwest 

border, yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. How many more trucks are going to be inspected 

now than before, then? 

Mr. TITUS. I do not have that information, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The American people, Mr. Chairman, have a right 

to know these questions. And we have asked those questions for 3.5 

years. We do not have an answer for those questions. 

Thank you for your answers, and thank you for your service. 

I want to add something to what the gentlelady from Texas 

talked about. Now, we are going to be taking a vote in a few moments on the floor, as you well know, and we are going to be taking 

that vote on whether or not we support the secretary of Homeland 

Security from my state, Mr. Chertoff, or whether we are going to 

support the further minimization of FEMA. 

And we, the Homeland Security Committee, this subcommittee—

we have not discussed that, to my knowledge. Or did I miss something? Did I miss anything? So let me say this in conclusion, because, you know, you do not want to hear me in a 4th of July 

speech. 

We have had enough Hail Mary passes in the last 3 weeks, and 

it is leaning to the debilitation, the further debilitation, of FEMA. 

We can not accept this. I am going to vote for the amendment from 

Mr. Sabo, the gentleman from Minnesota. 

But apparently this is going to be—this is going to come down 

to a partisan vote. I thought that we had an obligation and responsibility to the American people to get beyond politics and work together. 

And if Mr. Chertoff is throwing down the gauntlet today, then he 

better understand what is at stake, unless we are going to be 

complicit in this, Mr. Chairman. Now, I want this to be a non-partisan thing, and I believe you do, too. And our ranking member, I 

know, is committed to that. 

We had no discussions on this. That is a disgrace. And then you 

wonder why we asked for an independent review. These phony 

hearings are a rash of scapegoats. You know, the Greeks have a 

great saying. When the fish stinks, cut the head off. 
29

We have serious problems here, and we are fooling the American 

people. We are trying to fool them. The only thing is they are a lot 

smarter than we are. We really are, Mr. Chairman—very disappointed at this move. Every action I have ever taken on this 

committee is bipartisan. Look at the record. 

And I am not going to accept this from Chertoff, Tertoff, I do not 

care, any of them. This is wrong. It is immoral. And we are not 

going to accept it. So you better tell your leadership what is going 

to happen. I am serious. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman yields back. I thank him for his 

questions and statements. 

I would like to kind of wrap up this panel by revisiting what I 

think—I am sorry. The gentleman from Florida does have some 

questions. 

Mr. MEEK. Now, I wanted the other members to have an opportunity to ask their questions, and I know that we are about to go 

into a vote, and I know we are going to segue into the second panel 

after the vote. 

First of all, so I do not—I have a serious question as it relates 

to coordination to the response of a natural disaster, as it relates 

to the canine issue. I know that a couple of my colleagues have 

brought up issues as it relates to oversight responsibility of this 

committee. 

This actual panel, Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, has been postponed immediately after the Katrina incident due to the fact that 

we all needed the kind of response and get our head together on 

what we should do. 

This is what we call regular order, where we are doing the things 

that we need to do. Meanwhile, we have a natural disaster to respond to, but we also have the responsibility of making sure that 

we still conduct oversight functions of the overall department. 

I would also like to state that there are a lot of sideshows that 

are going on. We are a 365-day-a-year subcommittee that is supposed to be looking into oversight of the department and making 

sure the American people are protected. 

This is a serious battle, Mr. Chairman. You know and other 

members on this committee know on a bipartisan end, being a 

member of both Armed Services and Homeland Security, which 

should be always a non-partisan effort in protecting the American 

people. 

Unfortunately, there are some other things that are going on now 

that is making it more partisan, and that means that it is making 

us more vulnerable. I want to get back to the question. I just wanted to make that statement. 

The question as it relates to your assets—all of you have assets 

out there through the United States, and in the event like a 

Katrina or an event of a terrorist attack, some of you have canine 

officers or, I mean, dogs working on the borders, some of you—customs, border protection, you have—and transportation security, you 

have canine and handlers working in international airports. 

Something happens, we know that the local law enforcement 

agencies have partnered with the federal agencies, but they are, 

quote, unquote, your assets, am I correct, or am I incorrect? 
30

You can give me a yes or no on that. 

Mr. KONTNY. Correct. Sir, all the assets, the canine assets, within the TSA program—the dogs are actually government-furnished 

equipment. They belong to the Government. But all the handlers 

are actually law enforcement officers assigned to that particular 

airport or that particular community. 

Mr. MEEK. Okay. This leads me into my question. Terrorist attack, natural disaster, first thought of local law enforcement, we 

want to help our brother or our sister agency, we are going to send 

our canines, they are needed, the explosive detectors in an issue of 

a threat of terrorist attack in a geographical area. 

Is there a plan or has there been some discussion of making sure 

that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable in another area because 

we do not have enough canines to cover the assets that we know 

that is either the number one or number two? 

I am asking this question because in the case of the natural disaster in New Orleans, we all knew through top-off programs and 

exercises that New Orleans could be flooded, and that it was not 

a serious priority in other parts of the agency. 

I just want to make sure in this area that either there has been 

some thought or there is some level of coordination, and we do not 

have to necessarily wait on someone to say well, you really need 

to call them and tell them they may not want to send half of their 

team because we need to be able to make sure that we cover the 

Boston Airport, for instance. 

Mr. KONTNY. If I may, sir—and lessons learned from Katrina and 

Rita—because we knew there was a heavy volume of traffic that 

was going to go through Houston, we actually took in a coordinated 

effort, at the request of the assistant secretary—we actually moved 

assets, protection assets, from Dallas–Fort Worth Airport into 

Houston to be able to move the passengers through and be able to 

add that presence there—lessons learned, again, from Katrina. 

Also, as far as the mass transit, after we saw Madrid and after 

we saw the attacks in London, the Department of Homeland Security put together what is Phase One of our mass transit system, 

which is a rapid deployment force using defense resources. Again, 

that was Phase One, where we can look and see what resources are 

available that are already there, and can we augment those resources to be able to negate whatever that threat is. 

Mr. MEEK. So what happens—let us say, for instance, in my case, 

we have one of the best search and rescue teams with our fire department there at Miami Dade County. They usually work together 

with the Miami Dade Police Department, which—you have assets 

down there. 

Let us say, for instance, there is a team—I am just pulling a 

number out of the air—of 20 dogs and 20 handler. The director of 

the public safety department is saying we are sending 12 of our canines there, even though half of that team is ours, and also I would 

assume that we paid for some of the handlers’ training. 

But we know that MIA is on the list of airports, the largest international—it has the most international-international traffic, and a 

lot of the 9/11 hijackers came from the South Florida area. 

Is there some sort of calling you or your agency and saying we 

would like to do this? But as it relates to overall in securing Amer-
31

ica, we want to send teams: we want to send 12. Is that fine with 

you, or are these decisions just made on the local level that are not 

necessarily looking at the bigger picture of our mission? 

Mr. KONTNY. Speaking only, sir, for the Transportation Security 

Administration, under our cooperative agreement with our partners, the local law enforcement agencies, it is a cooperative effort. 

They can not arbitrarily deploy those resource without coordinating 

with our office and vice versa. 

We are not going to actually take their resources without coordinating with the airport director. 

Mr. MEEK. That is the answer I needed. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I know that we have a vote. 

I look forward to working with you in the future. 

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman yields back. I would like to close 

with a couple of questions. 

It has been my sense leading into this hearing and in hearing 

each of you talk that we have a much greater demand for canine 

assets than we have canine assets to meet that demand. 

Would each of you give me a yes or no whether you agree with 

that statement, starting with you, Mr. Bohan? 

Chief BOHAN. Yes, I agree with that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Kontny? 

Mr. KONTNY. Yes, sir, but a caveat would include quality and 

highly trained canines. 

Mr. ROGERS. I agree with that. 

Mr. Titus? 

Mr. TITUS. Sir, would you ask your question again, please? 

Mr. ROGERS. We have a much greater demand for canine assets 

than we have canine assets to meet that demand. That has been 

my observation. And I am particularly interested in your response 

to that after my visit to the border in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. 

Mr. TITUS. Well, sir, I am a canine trainer, and I do not look at 

the operational side of the house. But certainly, we can get an answer back to you on what our direction’s going to be on that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, your counterparts on the border tell me they 

need a lot more dogs, so that might be a good group to talk with. 

Next, I would like to ask—and this will be my final set of questions—where do you get your dogs, and how much do you pay for 

them to obtain them, and how much do you pay to train them? 

Mr. Bohan? 

Chief BOHAN. We get our dogs from various guide dog foundations and vendors. 

Mr. ROGERS. Domestically or foreign? 

Chief BOHAN. We get our dogs domestically. We only use Labrador Retrievers. 

Mr. ROGERS. How much do you pay for them? 

Chief BOHAN. I believe somewhere around $2,000 for—

ATTACHMENT #2

Agency note: ATF pays approximately $2,150 per canine. We estimate the training cost per canine to be roughly $60,000, not including salaries.

Mr. ROGERS. How much does it cost to train them? 
32

Chief BOHAN. I would not have that figure right in front of me. 

I can get back to you, on the record, with that. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you would, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. Kontny? 

Mr. KONTNY. Yes, sir. We take a three-prong approach into our 

procurement of canines. One, partnering with the Department of 

Defense to obtain assets through their services; local vendors 

throughout the United States; and our breeding program or what 

we call our puppy program down at Lackland Air Force Base, 

which is part of a global colony. As a matter of fact, the Customs 

and Border Protection has some. Auburn University has them as 

well. 

So by taking that approach, if one of those prongs suffers because 

of access, we are able to facilitate further development to meet our 

needs. 

Mr. ROGERS. So how much do you pay for your dogs? 

Mr. KONTNY. Well, it averages, sir, again, probably between 

$2,500 and $3,000 per dog, and then we are looking at the costs 

associated with the breeding program, as well, as that matures. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. And how much is the training of that dog? 

Mr. KONTNY. I will have to get back to you with the specific figures on that, sir, because our training process is—we actually pay 

for the handler, the local law enforcement officer, that goes down 

there. So if we could look and dissect the question on how much 

the training costs are and how much—

Mr. ROGERS. If you could get that for us for the record, I would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. KONTNY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the dogs that you receive, are any of them obtained from foreign sources? 

Mr. KONTNY. In some cases, sir, when we partner with the Department of Defense, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Mr. Titus, where do you obtain yours? 

Mr. TITUS. Historically, sir, we have been getting our dogs from 

animal shelters, SPCAs and the like. What has happened since 9/

11 is—and plus, the fact in the past we have trained so many other 

law enforcement agencies, and they have picked up on the same 

way that we train our dogs. 

There are a great many officers out there looking at those traditional sources for detector dogs or potential detector dogs, and 

therefore what is happening is that there is a very high supply and 

demand need. So we are actually buying more dogs today than we 

ever have before. 

We get our dogs from domestic and foreign sources. We have some vendors that we work with. We pay approximately $4,500 for 

an untrained dog. We do not have the tuition costs for our officers 

because it is officers training officers. However, we do have a per diem cost of about $10,000 to $11,000 

per officer for their per diem while they stay in Front Royal or in 

the national canine facility. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would ask you to do the same thing the other two 

witnesses have offered to do, and that is, for the record, submit to 

this committee the percentage of dogs that you get from foreign 
33

sources as opposed to domestic sources, what their costs are to buy 

them, and then what the costs are to train them. 

I thank all of you. You have been very helpful to us. This is a 

very important subject for our nation, I think, going forward, particularly with the challenges that we have in our mass transit systems, as well as other challenges. These assets are going to be very 

important in our national security. 

Thank you for your time. 

At this time, I am going to dismiss this panel. We have been 

called for a vote. We will be back at about 1 o’clock and convene 

the second panel. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ROGERS. The Chair will now call up the second panel. 

And I would like to recognize Chief Gene Wilson, Chief of Police 

for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH WILSON 

Chief WILSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the invitation. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Police Department is the law enforcement agency primarily 

responsible for protecting the system, its customers, employees and 

physical assets. 

We have police jurisdictions in the two counties that Atlanta is 

located in, Fulton and DeKalb. We interact with 23 different police 

jurisdictions. We carry 500,000 people a day, have a force of 296 

people and 43 civilians. 

Both the U.S. and the Georgia Department of Homeland Security 

have identified MARTA as a critical infrastructure. Historically, 

transit systems throughout the world have been targets of terrorist 

attacks. 

The recent attacks against transit systems in Madrid and London illustrate the successful tactics of targeting a public transit facility with many potential casualties and the subsequent political 

and economic consequences. 

The MARTA Police Department, in an attempt to deter terrorist 

acts, has developed specialized response units, a system of threat 

assessment, and a system of public education and notification of 

potential threats. The specialized response teams include the bomb 

squad, the special operations response team, and the canine explosives unit detection team. 

MARTA is a typical U.S. transit system, in that free movement 

into and out of the system is by design, for the convenience of our 

customers. Unfortunately, the design handicaps the securing of the 

facility during times of heightened alert. Unlike airports, each 

transit station can be accessed by the public through multiple entrances. 

Rather than restrict the entry method, transit systems depend 

upon our security measures to deter a terrorist attack. The explosive detection canine program is a vital tool in this deterrence. 

Dogs are highly visible, flexible in their position, and cost effective. 

It is expected that a terrorist attack would be preceded by reconnaissance of a potential target by members of a terrorist group. If 
34

you look at the video that has come out of the London bombing, 

you see the three suspects days earlier wandering through the system. 

We tell the public, we tell our officers, we tell our employees, 

look for something suspicious. You look at those videos, there is 

nothing suspicious. They look like anybody else in the transit system going from Point A to Point B. 

Visible security measures are intended to convince the potential 

attacker that the likelihood of a successful attack is minimal. The 

unpredictable and high-visibility presence of dog teams is an important component of that strategy. 

The cost of a single canine team, while significant, is still cost 

effective. Detection machines, as currently available, must be 

placed either at strategic stations and entry points, or at all stations and all entry points. The cost of installing detection equipment at every entry point in a system is cost prohibitive. 

Unlike technology detection equipment, canine teams can change 

locations randomly, as threats develop, or during special events 

with large crowds. 

Visibility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness are some of the reasons for the deployment of canine teams in the MARTA system. Reliability of these teams’ ability to detect explosives is another. 

During the 1996 Olympics, of course, the venue of the Centennial 

Park was bombed. After that, even though we had numerous bomb 

detection teams in the Atlanta area, if every backpack, every briefcase that was left turned into the potential to be a bomb, and these 

teams were stretched beyond their capabilities—we found that 

what happened to us in the transit system is that we literally almost had to close the system down waiting for these resources to 

be allocated back to transit. 

What we did after the Olympics—we developed our own bomb 

team and our own bomb detection dogs capabilities. That is how in 

1998 we started working with the—it was then the FAA, now it is 

the TSA. 

The Madrid bombings raised additional concerns about the vulnerability of transit systems to suicide bombers and man-transported explosives. It was felt that this tactic, having been proven 

successful, would probably be used in the future. 

We started doing research in-house and realized that our bomb 

detection dogs would detect a stationary object. If a person was 

standing still or if they had placed a briefcase down, our dogs 

would react. But if you move it, if you walk by it—if you noticed 

the demonstration earlier, when the—I believe it was customs had 

the dog check the lady. 

The lady stood still. If she had walked by the dog, the dog would 

not have—he would not have reacted, because they have been 

trained not to be interfered with by people’s movements. 

So we realized that if we were going to try to be proactive on a 

suicide bomber, we had to do something more than the TSA dogs. 

And that is how we became involved with the Auburn program. We 

have now got a total of eight dogs, two Auburn, six TSA. 

We have now got people both in the—we have got two people 

scheduled for the Auburn school. One will go in 2006. And then we 

have got another one scheduled for the TSA school. 
35

We feel that this partnership between the two types of dogs, the 

TSA and the Auburn dogs, along with good training, gives us what 

we feel to be a potent—or at least potentially to be a potent deterrence against any sort of terrorism. 

I notice that my time is up, so I will conclude my statement. If 

you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. 

[The statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH EUGENE WILSON, JR. 

The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Police Department 

is the law enforcement agency responsible for protection of persons and property on 

transit system properties and in transit vehicles. The transit system encompasses 

approximately twenty-three political jurisdictions in two counties. The Police Department is authorized 296 sworn and 43 civilian positions. 

The U.S. and Georgia Departments of Homeland Security have identified MARTA 

as a critical infrastructure component. Historically, transit systems throughout the 

world have been targets of terrorist attacks. The recent attacks against transit systems in Madrid, Spain and London, Great Britain illustrate the successful tactic of 

targeting a public transit facility with many potential casualties and the subsequent 

political and economic consequences. 

The MARTA Police Department, in an attempt to deter terrorist attacks, has developed specialized response teams, a system of threat assessment, and a system of 

public education and notification of potential threats. Specialized response teams include the Bomb Squad, the Special Operations Response Team, and the Canine Explosives Detection Unit. 

MARTA is typical of U.S. transit systems, in that free movement into and out of 

the system is by design, for the convenience of customers. Unfortunately, this design 

handicaps the securing of those facilities during times of heightened alert. Unlike 

airports, each transit station can be accessed by the public through multiple entrances. 

Rather than restricted entry methods, transit systems depend upon other security 

measures to deter terrorist attacks. The explosive detection canine program is a 

vital tool in that deterrence. Canines are highly visible, flexible in their positioning, 

and cost effective. 

The presence of a canine team, one uniformed police officer paired with one dog, 

is highly visible to anyone entering a transit facility. The team is mobile, with the 

ability to move around a large facility or to board transit vehicles, increasing their 

visibility as they move. Customers at MARTA often express their appreciation for 

the presence of the teams, indicating that the public is reassured by this security 

measure. 

It is expected that a terrorist attack would be preceded by reconnaissance of a 

potential target by members of the terrorist group. Visible security measures are intended to convince the potential attacker that the likelihood of a successful attack 

is minimal. The unpredictable and highly visible presence of canine teams is an important component of that strategy. 

The cost of a single canine team, while significant, is cost effective. Detection machines, as currently available, must be placed either at strategic stations and entry 

points, or at all stations and entry points. Machines are not easily moved, and a 

prepared terrorist will know where the machines are on any given day. Their planning would include entering the system that does not deploy machines at every 

entry point. The cost of installing detection equipment at every entry point in a system is cost prohibitive. Unlike technological detection equipment, canine teams can 

change locations randomly, as threats develop, or during special events with large 

crowds. 

Visibility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness are some of the reasons for the deployment of canine teams in the MARTA system. Reliability of the teams? ability to detect explosives is another. 

The decision was made immediately after the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, to form 

the MARTA Police Bomb Squad and Explosive Canine Detection Unit. Research of 

canine programs revealed that reliability of a canine team’s ability was critical. Vendors of dogs and training were plentiful; proven programs were not. It was decided 

that only two programs, the FAA and the ATF, were of sufficient quality and could 

show quantifiable reliability. MARTA chose the FAA program, and over the years 

since, has become a full partner in the FAA/TSA program. 
36

The Madrid bombings raised additional concerns about the vulnerability of transit 

systems to suicide bombers and man-transported explosives. It was felt that this 

tactic, having been proven successful, would probably be used in the future. An investigation into the ability of our dogs to detect explosives carried by moving people 

revealed a deficiency in that area. 

The TSA dogs were conditioned to ignore people as a distraction. The dogs, although they sometimes showed interest in persons carrying explosives, would not 

‘‘alert’’ to them. They would search persons who were presented to them by their 

handler, as in a stationary group, but would ignore a moving crowd. 

A search was made for agencies, training facilities or individuals who had the 

same concerns or who were actively training dogs to search moving persons, which 

we had begun to term ‘‘personnel search dogs.’’ There was only one positive response 

to our search; Auburn University Canine Research Center. 

The Auburn facility had embarked on a program that met the needs of our department. Funds from an Office of Domestic Preparedness grant were obtained for the 

purchase and training of two personnel search canines. One of those dogs has been 

deployed at MARTA for a year, and the second team is presently in training at Auburn. 

The MARTA Police Canine Explosive Detection Unit currently consists of eight 

handler/K–9 teams. Two of those teams are from the Auburn Canine program. The 

other six teams are in the TSA program, and they are currently the only public 

transit TSA teams in the country. The TSA is in the process of deploying canine 

teams to the top 10 transit systems in the U.S. 

The MARTA Police Department, along with many police departments in the Atlanta area, is under severe budget constraints. Subsequently, manpower shortages 

affect the mission of protecting against terrorist attack. The intensive training regimen of explosive detection canine teams requires that officers assigned to the Unit 

be taken off regular beat assignments. The result is a critical shortage of uniformed 

patrol officers. 

The TSA canine program includes an annual reimbursement to the participating 

department of $40,000 for each team the department fields. Although the amount 

does not cover all expenses associated with a team, it does help when requesting 

replacement officer positions from the governing Board. Continuing reimbursement 

is the most effective means to sustain a substantial canine deterrence. 

In late 2004, MARTA and Auburn University hosted representatives from the 

Sussex County Police, Great Britain, Los Angeles Police Department, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. The Sussex County 

and Los Angeles representatives were canine unit supervisors and each department 

was in the process of forming a personnel search canine program. The participants 

exchanged training and operational information, and an ongoing network of communication has been established. All representatives agreed that the personnel search 

K–9 concept, combined with standard canine explosives detection teams, is an effective means of addressing changing trends in terrorist tactics.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORIARTY 

Mr. MORIARTY. Mr. Chairman, Representative Meek, thank you 

very much. Fifteen years ago, Auburn University established the 

Canine and Detection Research Institute. Its mission was and still 

is to carry out research and development in canine detection to protect both people as well as critical national infrastructure. 

We have conducted more than 15 federally funded multi-component research projects ranging from a laboratory assessment of canine olfaction—how well can they smell—to odor detection signature analysis—how do they know how to do it. 

To complement the research efforts that we have been engaged 

in, we have established a canine detection training center at Fort 

McClellan, Alabama to transfer the lessons learned from the research into the training programs for both dogs, handlers, trainers 

and program managers. 

Fort McClellan provides the ideal location and the logistical partners for our canine program and the university embellished this 
37

and has built a 40-run state-of-the-art kennel and breeding facility 

there. 

Collectively, Auburn University has now about 200 years of canine training experience in our staff members, and we have invested $5 million to bring the program to where it is. Three of our 

staff, as an example, more than any other entity, were chosen to 

serve on the recently established 55-member scientific working 

group for dogs and orthogonal detectors. 

Historically, canine detection has been practiced more at a craft 

level than a science. The purpose in our focusing on teaching handlers some basic behavioral principles and the associated technical 

language is to move the canine detection in the direction of a 

science. 

Handlers who are equipped with a basic understanding of behavioral principles and consistent technical knowledge are better 

armed to maintain the performance of their dog and meaningfully 

collaborate with their colleagues and instructors to improve the 

performance of their dogs. 

Our explosive detection course requires 10 weeks. The drug detection course requires 6 weeks. Both include extensive training in 

operational environments and they conclude with a realistic scenario-based evaluation and videotape certification of each team’s 

operational qualifications. 

The varied experiences of our skilled staff and the associated research that we conduct allow our program to rapidly develop new 

applications for bringing canines to bear on problems of national 

needs. 

For example, our canine program conducted research and developed training procedures in support of the Department of Energy 

in fielding the first-ever operational chemical warfare agent detector dog teams. 

Our current efforts in prototyping focus on applications of immediate relevance to homeland security and force protection, and one 

of these, as the chief has just mentioned, is person screening for 

explosive material, particularly in a mass transit theater. 

Other applications involve remote and relatively autonomous detector dog operations. For example, remote screening of vehicles 

with the occupants by the dogs, with the handler being hundreds 

of yards away and in a safe environment provides a much safer environment for the handler to operate at particular checkpoints. 

We are also developing remote position locating and command 

issuing equipment with which to equip dogs for remote autonomous 

applications including border protection. The dog can also serve as 

a remotely guided platform for other sensors—radiological, chemical, biological, cameras, listening devices and so forth. 

Our program, having no operational mandate of its own, and 

having an experienced instructional staff and R&D capabilities, 

provides a resources for specialized mission curriculum development and novel applications of canines. We are unique, and to that 

end, a sample of our customers includes the Coast Guard, MARTA, 

Federal Protective Service and many others. 

An example of some of our graduates—we have had two Coast 

Guard teams from Seattle using our dogs who have assisted the 

ATF and local law enforcement in recovering bomb-making mate-
38

rials on two separate occasions that were not able to be located by 

the agents using physical means. 

Auburn and the TSA are only two satellites of the highly successful Australian customs dog breeding program, and we are the only 

non-federal program. That gives us opportunities to breed detector 

dogs at Auburn University. 

Nationally, the attention to enhancing canine detection resources 

and capabilities has been, in my opinion, disproportionately low 

given the immediate potential to support homeland security, particularly in relationship to the attention and funding allotted to the 

development of static electronic detection devices. We need both, I 

would argue. 

We have the institutional capacity to ramp up our personnel and 

facilities at McClelland if the external support is available. 

In conclusion, despite the significant advances in electronic sensors—and there has been significant advances—the use of dogs is 

still widely regarded as the most capable tool for the interdiction 

of hazardous materials such as explosives. 

Dogs can interrogate articles in large areas with rapidity unmatched by any other means of detection. And dogs can detect concentrations of an odor as low as one part in 100 trillion. Now, aside 

from the national debt, 100 trillion is a number that we typically 

think of. But put it in terms—that is like detecting an ounce if you 

dilute it in 800 billion gallons. Dogs are good. 

A well trained detector dogs handling team is a vital weapon for 

safeguarding the nation against terrorism. But again, as I posed, 

I think canine detection is underutilized because of the limited 

number of top quality training programs, a limited supply of high 

quality dogs, and sparse funding of the detection research and development that must underlie the this technique. 

Auburn’s canine detection program is uniquely capable and positioned to provide an asset responsive to these needs. I thank you 

for your attention. 

[The statement of Mr. Moriarty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. C. MICHAEL MORIARTY

Auburn University’s Canine and Detection Research Institute (CDRI) mission is 

to conduct research, development, and training activities to enhance canine and 

other substance detection technologies. These activities focus on the detection of 

hazardous materials to protect people and critical national infrastructure. Auburn 

has provided basic research, technological development, and education to the detector dog community for the last 15 years. 

Auburn has conducted more than 15 federally funded multi-component research 

projects ranging from behavioral laboratory assessment of canine olfactory sensitivity and odor detection signature analysis to a year-long applied examination of 

the effective working duty-cycle of detector dogs under different environmental conditions. The performance of prototype detection instrumentation has been examined 

using the Institutes behavioral laboratory preparation for studying olfaction, which 

is the only time the performance of such devices has been examined in a manner 

allowing direct comparison to the olfactory sensitivity of a dog. Auburn is the U. 

S. Government’s primary source of research related to canine detection and information from this research established the scientific precedent supporting the use of detector dogs for the detection of explosive and other hazardous materials. Furthermore, the Institute is a primary source of information and problem solving for the 

detector dog community responding to 100 or more e-mail, phone, and mail request 

for information or guidance regarding the use of detector dogs each year. 

Auburn established the Canine Detection Training Center at Ft. McClellan, AL 

to further the technology transfer and training components of the Institute’s mission. The Center trains dogs, handlers, trainers, and program managers in the per-
39

formance of all facets of canine detection work. A unique aspect of the Center is that 

it provides an operational context in which applied research is conducted and, in 

turn, results from that research are incorporated into training programs forming a 

continuous loop of quality and capability enhancement. Instruction at the center 

blends the craftsmanship of expert canine training professionals, behavioral and 

veterinary sciences, and the most recent technological advances. 

Auburn and the Transportation Security Administration, Explosive Detection Dog 

program, are the only two U.S. satellites of the highly successful Australian Customs Service Detector Dog Breeding Program and Auburn is the only non-federal 

government and academic veterinary science satellite of this program. This program 

selectively breeds dogs to be successful at detection work to enhance the quality of 

detector dogs and ensure a resource for such dogs amidst increased demand and 

ever more consolidated sources for working dogs, which is typically north-western 

Europe. Auburn has produced 21 litters of Labrador Retriever Puppies from which 

more than 50 successfully trained detector dogs have been paired with law enforcement handlers. This program is made possible through the support dozens of volunteers to house, care for, and provide these puppies with particular experiences to 

enhance their trainability. Recent collaborations with correctional institutions to 

employ low-risk inmates for raising of puppies make this program capable of very 

rapid expansion should demand warrant. The Labrador Retriever breed makes for 

an excellent detector dog, is adaptable to many applications, and is generally perceived as non-threatening by the public. The center also has established relationships with domestic and international vendors of the highest quality working dogs 

to fulfill the mission specific needs of any canine detection scenario. 

Auburn’s program is the only detector dog and handler training with the combination of direct support from a college of veterinary medicine, behavioral science—

based research and development activity and academic instructional design. The Auburn Canine Program is a unique, full service, state the art provider of canine detection research, development, training, and technology transfer. Program staff and resources provide the capabilities, technical expertise, and experience to address a 

myriad of canine detection challenges. Our guiding principals are a commitment to 

scientific understanding, quality, and responsiveness to the needs of practitioners. 

Ft. McClellan provides ideal infrastructure, location, and logistical partners for 

the mission of Auburn’s Canine Program. Auburn has a 99-year lease of several 

buildings and over 250 acres of land on the recently closed Army post. Include are 

the previous post veterinary clinic and a relatively new 24,000 square foot instructional building. Additionally, the University has constructed a 40-run kennel/breeding complex. McClellan contains several firing ranges, a driving course, airstrip, 

warehouses, multi-use buildings, and extensive personnel housing capacity typical 

of a large military training facility. Ample infrastructure is available to ramp-up to 

any conceivable level of training operations. Located between Atlanta and Birmingham and within 15 minutes of Interstate 20, McClellan is readily accessible. 

A collaborative atmosphere exists among the AU Canine Program, the ODP—Center 

for Domestic Preparedness and the FEMA—Noble Training Hospital in executing 

their respective Homeland Security Support missions making McClellan an ideal integrated hub for homeland defense/emergency preparedness training and technology 

development. 

Paul Waggoner is the overall director of the Auburn Canine Research and Training Programs. Paul has a doctoral degree in behavioral science and 15-years of experience in conducting research and development related to canine olfaction, detector 

dog training, handler instruction, and operational deployment of detector dogs. 

Thomas (Ed) Hawkinson is director of Training Activities. Ed’s experience includes 

managing the U.S. Secret Service Canine Program, Military Working Dog Program 

Operations Branch Chief and Senior Canine Instructor, and tours of duty as a Military Police Canine Handler and Kennel Master in Korea and Vietnam. John Pearce 

is the deputy director of training activities. John’s previous position was with the 

Military Working Dog Training Center assigned as branch chief for the TSA Canine 

Training Program. These two individuals have a myriad of experiences in training 

dogs, handlers, trainers, and supervisors as well as in employing canine detection 

for both military and law enforcement applications. Hawkinson and Pearce have recruited an eclectic ensemble of canine training / handler instructional staff with varied law enforcement, federal agency, and private investigation backgrounds. For example, staff member Jeanne Brock holds two masters degrees, is a certified veterinary technician, was proprietor of a canine training and canine arson / cadaver private investigation firm and is currently the President of the Canine Arson Detection 

Association. Auburn has over 200 person-years of experience in canine detection. 

Auburn has attracted instructors that are leaders in the field of canine detection 

who share the vision of applying behavioral science and canine training craftsman-
40

ship to enhance the practice of canine detection. Auburn’s canine training methods 

are based on the well-established principles of animal learning from academic behavioral science. Handlers are required to demonstrate mastery of over 80-hours of 

classroom instruction in our standard explosive and drug detection courses. The 

classroom instruction is comprehensive providing handlers with information ranging 

from health and sanitation of kennels to operational tactics; however, instruction in 

basic behavioral principles and the use of the correct behavioral terminology in the 

course is uniquely intensive. To date, canine detection has been practiced at more 

of a craft level than a technology. The purpose in our focusing on teaching handlers 

basic behavioral principles and its associated technical language is to move canine 

detection in the direction of a technology. Handlers equipped with a basic understanding of behavioral principles and consistent technical language are better armed 

to maintain the performance of their dog and communicate meaningfully with their 

colleagues and instructors in diagnosing and correcting performance problems. Our 

explosive detection course is 10-weeks long and our drug detection course is 6-weeks 

long. Both include extensive training in operational environments and conclude with 

realistic scenario based evaluations and video—taped certification of operational 

competence. 

Auburn welcomes and supports the establishment of national best practice guidelines for training, evaluation, certification, and operational practices in canine detection. Best practice guidelines are critically needed to reduce the extreme variability 

in the quality with which canine detection is practiced. Such guidelines will also 

provide a common set of technical and operational terms to aid communication 

across practitioners. Perhaps the most immediate importance of such guidelines is 

to make it possible for the Department of Homeland Security to identify and maintain a database of canine detection teams and their specific operational capabilities 

for effective utilization of local, regional, and federal canine detection resources in 

response to terrorist threat situations and critical incidents. Such guidelines must 

accommodate the diverse operational missions of different agencies. Therefore, we 

prefer the concept of guidelines, which may provide the basis for ‘‘standards’’ promulgated by a specific segment of the responder community or certification of an 

agency of the Federal Government to conduct particular tasks, as opposed to overarching ‘‘national standards or certifications’’ to which all applications under all circumstances must comply. Auburn has encouraged the development of the Scientific 

Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detectors (SWG DOG), which had its first 

meeting this month. This scientific working group (SWG) follows in the tradition of 

other successful working groups sponsored by the Department of Justice, such as 

the ‘‘SWG on DNA Evidence’’ and ‘‘SWG on Finger Printing’’ as well as the ‘‘Bomb 

Squad Commander’s EOD Technician Training Guidelines’’. Auburn was honored to 

have 3 members (more than any other agency or institution) chosen to serve on the 

55 member SWG DOG committee: Paul Waggoner (Unification of Terms and Research & Technology sub-committees); Robert Gillette (Breeding and Dog Care & 

Physical Conditioning) and; John Pearce (SWG Executive Committee Member, Chair 

of the Handler Selection & Training sub-committee, and Certification Procedures 

sub-committee). 

Instruction of handlers at the Training Center is also enhanced by affiliated subject matter experts at the University. For example, instruction regarding canine 

health, fitness, feeding, housing, and first aid is under the guidance of Robert Gillette, Professor of Veterinary Medicine and Director of the Sports Medicine Center 

within Auburn University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Gillette also serves 

as the primary veterinary consultant to the Center’s detector dog breeding activities. 

Auburn’s program is also unique in that its operational training program is monitored internally by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and externally 

by the U. S. Department of Agricultural as mandated for University’s by the Animal 

Welfare Act. Our R&D, training, and breeding activities the approval of and our 

housing and veterinary care of dogs is overseen by the Auburn University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and is monitored for compliance with the 

Animal Welfare Act by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The varied experiences of Auburn’s Canine Program staff and R&D support allow 

the Auburn program to rapidly develop new applications for canine detection. For 

example, the AU Canine program conducted research, developed training procedures, and supported the Department of Energy in fielding the first ever operational 

chemical warfare agent detector dog teams. Our current development and prototyping efforts focus on applications of immediate relevance to homeland security and 

force protection. One of these is person-screening for explosive material particularly 

in the mass transit theater. The appropriately prepared dog and handler team can 

effectively screen large numbers of persons and their carried items entering or 

exiting a mass transit theatre with little to no retarding of the flow of transit users, 
41

which is a significant concern regarding instrumental detection devices. Additionally, extensive observation of an Auburn trained operational detector dog personscreening team in the Metro Atlanta Transit system across the last 6-months suggests that very few people consider screening activities by a Labrador Retriever handled by a uniformed Transit Authority officer to be threatening or intrusive. Other 

applications being prototyped involve several remote and relatively autonomous detector dog operations. For example, remote screening of vehicles and their occupants 

by dogs with the handler or operator being hundreds of yards in distance from the 

vehicle provides a safer stand-off distance for officers in the case vehicle check 

points. We are also collaborating with AU Engineering in developing inertia enhanced global positioning systems and remote command issuing / reporting equipment with which to equip dogs for non line-of-sight applications such as building 

searches, search and rescue, long-range autonomous tracking of persons and surveillance for intruders along perimeters of critical infrastructure and for border protection. In such remote and autonomous applications, the dog can also serve as a highly mobile and adaptively directed platform for sensors, cameras, and listening devices. Auburns canine program’s ability to engineer the behavior of dogs for such 

applications has the potential to provide for many innovative applications for dogs 

that support homeland security and force protection. 

In addition to serving as a conduit for technology transfer to the detector dog user 

community and a vehicle for infusing established behavioral science into the craft 

of detector dog training and use, part of the vision of the Training Center was to 

provide a needed resource for high-level detector dog team (i.e., dog and handler) 

instruction to state, local, and private law enforcement/security agencies as well as 

federal agencies that did not have inherent training programs. Furthermore, as a 

program with no operational mandate, an eclectic instructional staff, and R&D capabilities, to provide a resource for specialized mission curriculum development and 

novel applications of canine detection. To that end, our customers to date have included the following: 

U.S. Department of Energy and Wackenhut Services: Chemical warfare agent 

R&D, proof of concept canine training and testing, handler instruction, and operational deployment support 

U. S. Customs Service: Technical support of prototype chemical agent detection 

training program on—site at McClellan. 

U.S. Coast Guard Office of Law Enforcement: Designed maritime operations curriculum and training program, trained first 10 new USCG service-wide unified canine program detector dog teams, assisted in development of USCG Policy and Procedures for detector dog program and performed after-deployment evaluation and 

program guidance. 

U. S. Secret Service Technical Services Division: Trained prototype explosive detection person-screening dog and conducted test and demonstration of person-screening capability 

Metro Atlanta Transit Authority: Developed curriculum and training procedures 

specifically for screening persons and their hand-carried items for explosive material 

in a mass transit theatre of operation. Have trained 2 person-screening detection 

teams for MARTS and anticipate the training of 2 additional teams 

Federal Protective Service, DHS: Developed specialized curriculum and training 

program. Over 50 Federal Protective Service detector dog teams have been trained 

to date. Re-evaluation and re-certification of nearly half of those teams has also occurred. 

Australian Customs Service: Trained two chemical warfare agent teams and consulted in development of Australian Customs Service firearms detection training 

program. 

Customs Service of the Territory of the Mariana Islands: Trained their first and 

only 4 explosive detector dog teams 

Local Law Enforcement: Trained several local law enforcement explosive and drug 

detector dog teams. In all but one case, this training and dogs has been done for 

free or significantly subsidized by Auburn University 

Private Security Firms: Have provided trained dogs and other services to two of 

the Nations preeminent private detector dog services: Explosive Countermeasures 

Inc., which has several Government (e.g. IRS, Holocaust Museum) and DOD (e.g., 

Pentagon Perimeter Security) contracts: Wackenhut Services DOE Security Operations and K–9 Search on Site, both of which provide detector dog services for DOE 

National Laboratory Sites (e.g., Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Sandia, Los Alamos). 

Several of our graduate detector dog teams have excelled in their operational missions. For example, two AU trained USCG teams from Seattle have assisted the 

ATF and local law enforcement in recovery of bombing making materials on two 

separate occasions by finding materials not able to located by physical searches. All 
42

of the 7 local area law enforcement drug detection teams we have trained have had 

multiple significant finds of illegal drugs. One of our FPS trained teams interdicted 

prohibited propellant (concrete nail gun ammunition—smokeless powder) material 

in the trunk of a vehicle during routine vehicle screening at the entrance to a Government building parking garage in D.C. 

Despite these success and advances, maintaining both R&D and Training Center 

capabilities have been a challenge for Auburn University financially due to insufficient volume and consistency of R&D and training service income. Auburn has endeavored to provide a critically needed resource for enhancing canine detection to 

support homeland security. Attention to enhancing canine detection resources, capabilities and innovative uses of canine detection has been disproportionately low 

given its immediate potential to support homeland security particularly in relation 

to the to the extensive attention and associated funding allotted to the development 

and fielding of instrumental detection devices. In particular, state and local law enforcement are unable to afford services at the level offered by Auburn or most other 

credible training services, thus canine detection, the most readily available tool for 

their use in detection, is relegated to lowest bidder; and subsequent to 9/11 the 

number of such low bidders expanded significantly. The cost of training a standard 

explosive detection team (including provision of a dog) at Auburn is currently 

$13,800 not including lodging and per-diem for the trainee. Some of our Government 

contracts require certain guarantees on dog health and performance, as well as additional elements of training that increase our typical costs for Federal customers 

to over $14,000. Drug detection team training cost $12,800. This price schedule reflects Auburn’s actual cost for performing this work including all the overhead, 

maintenance at McClellan and administration. In order to impact the practice of canine detection at the level of state and local law enforcement, Auburn has subsidized detection team training for state and local law enforcement by 10%; 20% for 

law enforcement agencies in Alabama. 

We offer high quality training at a relatively low price because of Auburn’s requisite non-profit business model as a State, Land-Grant University. In comparing 

these prices to quotes of training costs at Federal Agencies, it is important to consider whether agency quotes truly reflect the extant overhead expenses required to 

conduct their canine program including administrative costs. It is our opinion that 

any equal comparison will necessarily support our contention that our prices are 

very modest for the level of training and quality of facilities provided. 

Auburn currently can train about 36-detection teams per year. Owing to nearly 

100% retention of previous customers for re-evaluation, re-certification, canine program manager seminar attendees, and additional canine team training, we are 

nearing maximum utilization of this capacity, thus reducing our present ability to 

take on new customers for our service. Auburn University has invested on the order 

of $5 Million of non-federal funds to provide for personnel support and infrastructure development to reach this current capacity. However, Auburn has the institutional capacity to rapidly ramp up personnel and facility resources at McClellan to 

accommodate at least double that capacity within 6-months or less given external 

support. 

Despite significant advances in electronic sensors, the use of detection dogs is 

widely regarded as the most capable tool for the interdiction of hazardous materials 

such as explosives (1993, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress). Dogs are 

known to be capable of detecting concentrations of an odor at least as low as 1-part 

per 100 trillion parts of clean air, which exceeds the capability of most operational 

chemical detection devices. Moreover, canines possess amazing olfactory acuity, are 

capable of operating in ‘‘odor-noisy’’ environments (i.e., capabilities are not easily 

perturbed by extraneous odors), and provide for interrogation of articles and large 

areas with rapidity unmatched by any other method of detection. Thus, well-trained 

detector dog and handler teams are vital for safeguarding the Nation against terrorism. However, canine detection is underutilized because of a limited number of 

competent training programs, a limited supply of high-quality dogs, and sparse 

funding of canine detection research and development. Auburn University’s Canine 

Detection Program is uniquely capable and positioned to provide an asset responsive 

to all of these needs.

Mr. ROGERS. The chair recognizes Ms. Terri Recknor, President 

of Garrison and Sloan Canine Detection Company, for her statement. 

Ms. Recknor? 
43

STATEMENT OF TERRI RECKNOR 

Ms. RECKNOR. Thank you very much for affording me this opportunity to speak in front of you all. 

As you know, we have all been talking about canines, whether 

it is the federal training programs by Auburn, and if there is two 

things I can stress before I start my speech—is one, we need a 

standardization in the private industry. The federal agencies have 

not come together to standardize their programs, and that is first 

and foremost before they can help us. 

But we really need a standardization in the private industry. 

And the reason we need this is my second point. We can partner 

with the federal agencies. We have been wanting to partner with 

the federal agencies. Every 2 years there is an international canine 

explosive meeting. 

Last year, it was held in New Orleans, and it was brought up 

to TSA and the other federal agencies that if there was a standardization in the private industry and there was some type of a terrorism incident and they had identified private companies that 

would meet or exceed their standards, they could call upon these 

private companies. 

And we at Garrison and Sloan have been working for a number 

of years to try and get a standardization because we really need 

it in this industry. So if I can stress anything, it is standardization 

and partnership. 

Unfortunately, my partner, Tony Guzman, is the trainer in this 

organization, and he was unavailable today, so hopefully I will be 

able to answer your questions. 

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there has never been such a 

great need for canines ever before. It is unprecedented. And what 

we saw was after 9/11 that companies were begun and implemented overnight. 

Now, prior to 9/11, you saw mostly narcotics detection out there, 

because there was no need for explosive detection. So to fully train 

and certify an explosive canine team does not happen overnight. 

Let me emphasize at this point that, again, there is no national 

standardization. There is no national certification for private companies. When we state at Garrison and Sloan that we are a licensed company, what we mean is that we have an ATF license. 

We have a bunker at our training facility that houses explosives. 

We have been certified by the ATF. 

We also have a safe at our premises that has drugs that allows 

us to be certified by the DEA. We also have every state and local 

license that we need to operate. 

And it is interesting that my partner, Tony Guzman, is able to 

train the local agencies, various police departments, the state canines, but yet we are not permitted to work with them. So it is 

okay that we train them, we just can not work alongside of them, 

which I really do not understand. 

Another thing that we do that makes us unique in our industry, 

in the private industry, is that our dogs are all certified by the 

Florida International University. The reason this is so important is 

because there is no money to gain here on either side. 

A lot of the private companies train their own dogs. They use 

pseudo-explosives, which are dummy explosives, and they certify 
44

their own dogs. They do this because they could never pass a national certification. 

Florida International University has this program, and they have 

nothing to gain by it. We do not pay for it. If the dog fails, the dog 

fails. If the dog passes, he passes because he should pass. So I 

think that is important to note. 

And again, getting back to the formation of these companies after 

9/11, many of them were formed overnight. And I can tell you, 

being in Miami, Florida, there was a huge need for dogs. We are 

the cruise capital of the world. And it was interesting to see how 

many companies just appeared after 9/11. 

And you have seen how hard the dogs here work no matter what 

agency they work for. You have heard Auburn talk about how long 

their training program is. You can not manufacture these dogs. 

You can not train them overnight, which, in essence, means you 

can not staff overnight and you can not help local companies, local 

governments or to protect the nation. 

With us, our dogs go through a rigorous training. And I think it 

is interesting to note, too, when we talk about where everybody 

gets their dogs from, all of our dogs are European-bred. And you 

may ask yourself why Europe. The interesting thing about Europe 

is over there it is a sport. 

And also, it is expensive to buy these dogs. We do not have any 

domestic dogs. We do not go to the pound. We do not go to any private breeding source. We have looked at that, but the need has 

been so great that we go to Europe. 

My partner has been going to Europe for over 20 years. Six to 

eight times a year he goes to Europe. He has been dealing with the 

same top breeders in Europe, and they know him. They call and 

they say we are ready, we have dogs to look at. Tony just went to 

Europe I think 6 weeks ago and only brought back eight dogs, because the demand is so high. 

But the interesting thing is when he tests the dogs in Europe, 

we already know that they are good dogs. Our fail ratio once they 

dogs come back to Miami is less than 1 percent. And I am sure if 

you would ask that same question of all these federal agencies, 

they do not have that type of a number. 

Again, we pay for our dogs. And you had asked how much the 

dogs cost. Depends on where the euro is. I mean, we are at the 

mercy of the euro. Before 9/11, Tony could go to Europe and buy 

a dog for $1,000, $1,500. Now you are looking at $4,000, $5,000, 

$6,000 for a dog. 

And then you have to bring the dog back, and then you train the 

dog. We are fortunate in the fact that it is our company, so we can 

train at a higher ratio. We have dogs dispatched all over the country, and the different thing about our company, why we are trying 

to set such a high standard, is we do not employ civilians. 

Like other companies out there, rogue companies—and we can 

touch on the Russ Ebersols of the world—they will employ anybody 

that has a dog and say it is an explosive dog. Is it? No. 

I have been in the trenches since 9/11. I know every competitor 

I have, and I can tell you without a doubt we are the only company 

that has such a high standard that if you see our dogs work in 
45

Newark, New Jersey, New Orleans, L.A., all these dogs are not 

only trained on explosives but they are maintained on explosives. 

The people that work for us are off-duty canine officers, and we 

meet with the individual police departments and we get their 

chief’s approval that we will give them our dog, and they will work 

for us, but they will also maintain our dogs with their explosives. 

Nobody else does this. 

What they will do is they may perhaps train a dog and then send 

it off to whatever, and use pseudos, or maybe nothing at all. And 

yet they expect these dogs to find explosives. I can not stress 

enough they can not find explosives. 

So one of the things that I know is kind of an underlying current 

here is are we keeping the public safe, are we doing what is right. 

I can only tell you no, we are not. They are trying. The federal 

agencies are trying, but they are—just like we heard today about 

what is going on with FEMA and everything, this is the first time 

in 4 years that we have sat like this. 

I have gone to every meeting where they will let me speak, and 

I tell the people if you are interested in employing a canine company, go to their facility. Chances are they do not have a facility. 

Everything on their web site is bogus. 

We contacted ATF. We contacted DEA. Because if you go on a 

Web search, you will find all of these home pages that have the 

DEA license and the ATF license. It is bogus. They put it there, 

and people assume that if it is there, they must be licensed. Maybe 

what they have done—what we have seen with a lot of companies—is a company, say, in Houston will say that it is ATF-licensed. Well, it is. It has paid some company in Chicago to use 

their license. 

So, really, how do they maintain these dogs? Perhaps they have 

trained the dogs in Chicago, shipped them off to Houston. They are 

not maintained. And as my partner would say if he was here, these 

dogs could not find a fat man in a phone booth. Not possible. 

We need standards, and we need to work with the federal government to do this. And I commend all of you for doing this. Auburn has a great program. And I commend them for trying to breed 

these dogs. We do not have the time with our company to breed 

dogs. We would rather pay top dollar, have a dog that works unbelievably long hours. 

And something that is different about our teams than the federal 

teams is that when we work at the seaports—and Congressman 

Meek, I met you last year when we were at the Port of Miami. We 

work exclusively with Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise 

Lines all over the country and basically all over the world. 

And the thing that is different about our teams at the port—we 

have one handler and two canines. What this allows us to do is we 

alternate canines. We put pallets down. There could be 20 pallets, 

could be 10 pallets, whatever we do. One dog searches and then it 

rests. While that is resting, the second dog searches, so there is no 

down time. 

An average day at the port for us is anywhere from 250 pallets 

to 400 pallets. We do not slow down commerce. We do not do anything. We are actually the quickest way you can screen cargo. It 
46

is proven. They have tried the machines, swabbing, going over testing. You have got to calibrate those machines. 

The dogs work because they love to work. They are not calibrating anything. They do not take sick days. They do not take 

lunch breaks. We train on the toy method, which is that little hose 

you saw. They either get the hose or the Kong, that little red toy. 

All they want to do is find that toy. The do not want to eat. They 

do not want to play with a towel. They just want the toy. 

So what we do when we work at the ports—and I think Congressman Meek saw this—is we plant hide, and what that means 

is we cut a little hole in the plastic on one of the pallets and we 

place smokeless powder, and we walk the dog around, and we let 

him find that hide. Then he gets his toy, and he is happy and he 

is ready to work. 

Machines do not do that. Machines break down. Machines are 

costly. Our dogs work because they love it, and they love it because 

they have been bred to love it and because it is a sport in Europe. 

We also have been fortunate enough to work with FedEx at some 

of the airports. FedEx primarily mandated dogs for the narcotic industry. But when you think about feed, if FedEx has one plane 

leaving early or leaving late, it costs them millions of dollars. 

So I just would like to stress to you that if we are good enough 

to work for the cruise lines in all the major seaports, and we are 

good enough to work for a major air cargo company, then I think 

it is time to look at the private industry for supporting the federal 

agencies. 

At our kennel we have many dogs. We have actually ramped up 

for these dogs. So we can help. And if I can stress anything, we 

really need to partner. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Recknor follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRI RECKNOR

My name is Terri Recknor. I am the President of Garrison & Sloan, Inc., a Canine 

Detection Company based in Miami, Florida. My partner Tony Guzman was scheduled to appear before you today is unfortunately dealing with a number of family 

issues and cannot be here. My partner is also the President of Metro-Dade K–9 a 

canine facility specializing in the training of canines and handlers for state and local 

law enforcement. Mr. Guzman has been training and working with canines for over 

24 years. 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an unprecedented need for explosive detection canines, both in law enforcement and the private 

sector. Prior to 9–11, there were very few private canine detection companies. The 

majority of those companies worked exclusively in narcotics detection. Garrison & 

Sloan is unique in that it was one of the few canine detection companies that had 

an extensive inventory of fully trained and certified explosive canine teams. 

Let me emphasize that, at this point, there is no national standard for the licensing and certification of private industry explosive detection companies. When we 

state that our company is licensed and certified, it means the following. We posses 

a Federal Department of Justice, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) license for 

explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license for narcotics and all 

state and local licenses to train and certify our explosive and narcotic canines. Our 

canines are independently certified by Florida International University. In addition, 

to my knowledge we are the only privately-owned company in the United States to 

have it’s explosive canines certified by the Department of Defense. 

Immediately following 9–11 the need was so great for explosive detection canines 

that private detection canine companies were formed overnight. Many of these companies that were formed overnight claimed to have fully trained canines. It should 

be noted for the record that the average time it takes Garrison & Sloan to purchase 

a canine, train and certify an explosive detection canine is usually a minimum of 
47

5 months. The fact of the matter is a newly formed canine detection company that 

is properly licensed and certified cannot be fully operational for months. 

I would be the first to admit that because of the lack of a national standard, our 

industry has been seriously tainted by a number of fraudulent companies. Within 

the last two years, a private company in Virginia working for the Federal Government was indicted and found guilty for fraudulent canine services. Their canines 

were tested with explosives and did not alert. The owner was convicted and is currently serving time in a federal prison. 

It should also be noted that as a general rule most Federal State and Local Governmental agencies will not contract with private industry canine companies. Once 

again, it is my opinion that the reason for this is the lack of a national standard 

and the potential liability that would be attached by the governmental agency if the 

dogs should fail. 

Today it is my understanding that TSA, Customs and Border Protection Bureau, 

and the ATF collectively have no more than 1,700 trained canine teams in the 

United States. The majority of the TSA teams are located at the major metropolitan 

airports while the CBP teams are located along the U.S. borders. If one were to do 

the math, the number of federally trained canine teams would amount to approximately 35 per state. Given the most recent events of the train bombings in Madrid, 

Spain and London, England, I do not believe that this amount of dogs is anywhere 

near sufficient to protect our airports, seaports, subway systems, train station’s and 

our national treasures. 

In order to make an argument as to why governmental agencies should use properly licensed and certified private canine companies I would like to tell you how we 

obtain, train and certify our canines. My partner Tony Guzman travels to Europe 

6—8 times per year to purchase canines. He deals with well-established breeders 

throughout Europe. Why Europe? Europe is known for breeding the finest working 

dogs in the world. Once a dog is chosen by our company he must go through a rigorous 12-week training course. Our canines are trained on real explosives and real 

narcotics, which we obtain legally. ATF has very strict policies that must be adhered 

to before granting a license. Upon completion of training our canines must be certified. Our certification process is conducted by an independent entity—The Florida 

International University. After training and certification our canines must be tested 

weekly with explosives and narcotics to keep their level of proficiency at maximum 

performance. You should also be aware that it is our opinion for efficiency and effectiveness purposes that canines should not be dual trained. By that I mean our explosive canines are only trained on explosives and our narcotic canines are only 

trained on narcotics, we do not cross-train. 

Unfortunately, what I described to you is not the norm in our industry, it is the 

exception. The actual norm in our industry is that XYZ Company either purchases 

a dog from wherever it can find one or it goes to the local pound. Most Customs 

and Border Patrol dogs, for your information come from animal shelters, humane 

societies and rescue operations as reported in the Government Executive magazine 

dated September 1, 2005. Since most private industry companies cannot afford or 

legally possess an ATF license, they purchase pseudo (substitute) explosives. The canine is then trained on pseudo explosives and the trainer allegedly certifies the dog 

himself. These dogs cannot go through an independent legitimate certification process because they would fail. 

Another scenario that we see in our industry is that canine Company A pays an 

ATF certified canine Company B to utilize their ATF certification. Company A is 

located in North Carolina but uses Company B’s license which is located in California. 

In the past four years we have seen every type of rogue canine company imaginable. Quite possibly, a national standard is still years away but there are steps 

that can be taken now to ensure the integrity of private industry canine detection 

companies. These steps include greater oversight by ATF and DEA in the licensing 

and certification of private canine detection facilities. A quick look on the Internet 

and you will find all types of canine companies that market their services. You will 

also see that these companies represent that they posses an ATF or DEA license. 

When a prospective client researches these companies they ‘‘assume’’ what is printed on the website is fact. However, for the most part, it is fiction. 

While the Federal government today, principally TSA and CBP do not use private 

industry canines, I would respectively request, given the shortage of canine teams 

throughout the United States, that private industry canine teams who could meet 

or surpass the standards set by these government entities be permitted to be hired 

by the federal government. Should our canines fail to meet the same standards as 

that of the government then we should be released from the contract. However, it 
48

is my earnest belief that our private canine teams could meet and exceed the standards set by the federal government. 

In addition to the above I would like to advise you that after 9–11 the cruise line 

industry was the first to step up and hire private canine companies. Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Lines were at the forefront in their industry. They set 

the standard of insuring that all goods loaded on board their ships were screened 

by explosive detection canines. Last year, this committee, which was chaired by 

Congressman Cox, watched our company demonstrate the screening process for 

Royal Caribbean at the Port of Miami. This Committee observed how quickly a dog 

could screen a row of pallets to insure that no explosives were present. At that demonstration Congressman Cox asked me why dogs were not being utilized at airports. 

My answer then remains the same as it is today, and that is ‘‘private canine companies are not permitted by TSA to screen cargo at the airports.’’

All too often we watch on the nightly news how airline cargo is not screened and 

how our subways and train stations are not appropriately searched by explosive canine teams. The general consensious is that it would be too expensive and time-consuming to search all the cargo being loaded onto a plane and or packages and individuals boarding subways and trains. Perhaps this is true with electronic searching 

devices. However, canines could facilitate this screening process in a fraction of the 

time and for a fraction of the cost compared to utilizing mechanical testing equipment. 

You should also be aware that in addition to screening for the cruise lines, we 

are fortunate to work exclusively for Federal Express. Like Royal Caribbean and 

Norwegian Cruise Lines, FedEx is a leader in their industry. Shortly after 9–11 

FedEx hired us at numerous airports around the country to screen packages being 

loaded on their aircraft. They chose explosive canines for their thoroughness, accuracy and speed. As you know FedEx is all about speed but they have not forgotten 

about security. 

Screening air cargo by private canine detection companies could be managed the 

same way that cruise line cargo and FedEx packages are screened. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. While our industry 

needs national standards and increased oversight of those standards, we welcome 

the opportunity to work along side and with our federal state and local government 

counterparts to ensure the safety and security of our nation. I do not believe at the 

present time that the level of qualified and certified detection teams at the federal 

state and local level are sufficient to protect the facilities that need to be screened. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee has and once again 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

And I would like to start off with a few questions. 

Chief Wilson, I am curious. You said that you use dogs from TSA 

and Auburn. How did you choose those two sources? 

Chief WILSON. When we started first, Mr. Chairman, we looked 

at the dogs that were available. We really got down and we liked 

what we found with the TSA dogs, not only on how they were 

trained, how they train the trainer, but the fact that they have to 

be re-certified, and that is something we thought was important. 

We just did not get the dog in and get it there. The trainer and 

the dog have to be re-certified. 

Mr. ROGERS. How often? 

Chief WILSON. Every year. And if my trainer, if my officer that 

is handling the dog—if they are not re-certified, I put him back in 

regular patrol and the dog goes back to TSA. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many dogs do you have in service? 

Chief WILSON. Right now I have a total of eight dogs, six of 

which are TSA. Two are Auburn. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many do you need? 

Chief WILSON. I would like to have a total of 20 dogs. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you pay a flat rate to get these dogs? How much 

do they cost? 
49

Chief WILSON. TSA—they furnish the training, they furnish the dog. They also furnish about a $40,000 a year supplement for 

equipment such as the vehicle, the officer’s salary, vet bills, food, 

et cetera. 

Auburn, right now we are pretty much paying the full load now. We have done it through funds for ODP, but it is about $95,000 

the startup year because you have got to buy the vehicle and all 

of that stuff. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Dr. Moriarty, you talked about your capacity. What is the capacity currently at McClellan for training and what could it be ramped 

up to? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Currently our capacity is to train 36 dog-handler 

teams a year. We can ramp up and double that in less than 6 

months. 

Mr. ROGERS. And would you then be at maximum capacity in 

that facility? 

Mr. MORIARTY. No, what we are saying—our anticipation is to 

provide an additional kennel which would take us up to about 128 

dog-handler teams a year. 

Mr. ROGERS. A year. And where do you get your dogs? 

Mr. MORIARTY. We breed a good deal of ours, as we mentioned. 

We do have a domestic supplier. We do have a dealer in the Netherlands for European dogs. And the concern, of course, is that it 

would be unusual if the Europeans are giving us their top dogs. I 

think they would be tending to keep their top dogs for their own 

use. They are good dogs, there is no doubt about that. 

But also, if this is looked at as a national resource, the ability 

to provide canines for our domestic needs, then it seems to me that 

there should be some attention given to breeding and providing our 

own canine population. 

Mr. ROGERS. That was one of the things that disturbed me when 

I went to the Mexican border, and when I was in El Paso, and I 

found out that they got almost all of their dogs—well, not all, but 

a large percentage from Europe. And I heard Ms. Recknor talk 

about getting hers from Europe. 

And I just want to know why do we not have greater capacity 

here to breed our own lines? Before the demonstration a little while 

ago, I had the fellow with one of the dogs—it was a Belgian something. 

Ms. RECKNOR. Malinois. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. And he was with CBP, and he was telling me 

that the bloodlines were much more pure over there. My question 

is can we not establish the same kind of lines over here and create 

breeding programs that are domestically controlled and not have to 

rely on European sources? And if not, why not? And if so, what 

would it take? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Mr. Chairman, I think we can do that. I think 

part of the reasons why we have not done that in greater capacity 

is that the needs have been so great, the demand has been so high, 

that to meet the demands you have to acquire the dogs as conveniently as you can in order to address the current issues. 

But I would again pose that long term we should have our own 

supply of high-quality dogs. 
50

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have a breeding program in your—

Mr. MORIARTY. Yes, sir, we do, using the Australian customs 

dogs, an elite breed that is highly skilled for detection. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many can you produce a year? 

Mr. MORIARTY. We have had 21 litters so far, and we can—I 

would have to ask my colleague how many we could get per year. 

We could get up to 100 working dogs per year in the breeding program. 

Mr. ROGERS. That you currently have? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Could it be expanded to—

Mr. MORIARTY. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. —include these Belgian dogs? 

Mr. MORIARTY. The Belgian Malinois. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And what would it require? What kind of commitment from DHS? 

Mr. MORIARTY. The issue is twofold. We would have to expand 

the infrastructure to accommodate these animals, and then basically—we are a non-profit. We are a university. We are a 501(c)(3). 

We do not have the profit motive, but we do have full costs that 

we have to recover. 

It would be the dependence that we would have an ongoing partner with the federal agency who would be utilizing these dogs. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Ms. Recknor, who do you think would be the appropriate entity 

to establish the certification criteria for all these dogs? 

Ms. RECKNOR. That is a very interesting question, because when 

you looked at the three federal agencies that were here, everybody 

does something different. So I think it? 

Mr. ROGERS. And they all think they are right, too. 

Ms. RECKNOR. Yes. One thing I have learned—I do not come 

from a canine background. The canine people are a unique breed 

unto themselves because they truly believe that their way is the 

best way. And they are right that their way is the best way for 

them. But it is all over the board. 

I think what needs to happen is I think the federal agencies need 

to come together with private entities such as ours and really work 

at a standardization. I can tell you that our dogs’ standards for certification are much higher than what is average for the federal 

agencies, only because we are working under extreme duress at the 

ports. 

Most of the dogs we have are the Belgian Malinois, and they 

work harder than most federal agency dogs because they are in the 

heat and they are working full 8-hour days. 

Mr. ROGERS. But what I am hearing you say is that you think 

TSA, Border Patrol, ATF, as well as private entities such as yours, 

should collaboratively work to decide what entity would set the criteria—

Ms. RECKNOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. —or what the criteria should be? 

Ms. RECKNOR. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. ROGERS. What entity. 

Ms. RECKNOR. What entity. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. My time has expired. 
51

I now yield to my colleague from Florida for any questions he 

may have. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you all. 

Ms. Recknor, I want to ask you a question. You started talking 

about quality, and I think that is important, because I know the 

demand—and Chief, I know that you are going to, as they bill—

what do they call it, MARTA? 

Chief WILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEK. Okay. As they bill your rail system and you start to 

expand, you are going to need—there is going to be more demand. 

And I was kind of leading to this on the other panel of the cost savings or the cost savings by using—I call them officers, but—canine 

officers, by using them versus the personnel. 

And if you could answer the question, and then, Chief, you can 

come in behind her, Chief Wilson, by just talking about some of the 

personnel issues, because in times outside of a 9/11 kind of thinking, your budget got getter after 9/11. 

I mean, you did not have to fight as hard as you used to fight, 

I am pretty sure, for resources or what you needed. But now after 

9/11, not only are there more federal resources, there are also state 

resources, I am pretty sure, in the counties that you operate. 

I am saying that to say that I believe, again, by doing a good job 

we may run into times again where resources will be hard to come 

by. But to jeopardize quality is an issue, and I think something is 

very, very important to all of us as we start looking at protecting 

America. 

The federal agencies that are doing in-house training and providing dogs I know cannot provide—well, canine officers cannot 

provide and reach the demand alone. I mean, the private sector has 

to play a role in it. 

And like the chairman said, we have to have standards. You advocated we have to have standards. Just can not put up a sign and 

say we are in business to do business. 

Ms. RECKNOR. Right. 

Mr. MEEK. We are more into supply and demand, but that quality thing is far in the background, because our lives are dependent 

on it. 

So to sum it up, A, if you could address the issue of a possible 

way that the private sector can play a role in the issue of helping 

local law enforcement have more of a variety of what kind of canine 

dogs that they need, and the officer that they need. 

And, Chief, if you can address the issue as it relates to the personnel. Using the canine detector officers, the dogs that I am 

speaking of—I know when you say canine officer, you think of a 

person. But I used to be a state trooper, and I see these canines 

as officers. They are a part of what we do. 

Personnel-wise, has it made a difference as it relates to staffing? 

You say well, I need 10 transit officers here, but no, we have a canine there, we have two canine teams working there, we actually 

only need six to carry out the mission that we need. 

Ms. RECKNOR. I think to answer the subject of quality, the good 

thing about Garrison and Sloan is that Tony Guzman also owns 

Metro Dade Canine, and he is a training facility. So there is al-
52

ways—I do not want to say an abundance, but Tony always has a 

lot of trained dogs, because he sells them to law enforcement. 

He sells to the police departments all over the country. So when 

you look at quality, we have excellent quality dogs, whether it be 

Metro Dade waiting to be sold—and some of them we buy because 

we know the quality of our own dogs. 

And it has been interesting. Some of the departments that work 

for us on a subcontract basis have wound up purchasing Tony’s 

dogs because of the quality that they have seen. 

So when it comes to quality, the private sector—again, once there 

is standards—I can tell you the quality of our dogs is second to 

none in this industry. But I can not say that about other private 

companies. 

Mr. MEEK. And so let me—I am sorry to cut you off, because time 

is limited. So I guess your testimony would be if we get into the 

business of introducing the private sector into playing a role in the 

Department of Homeland Security’s mission in protecting America 

that, A, there should be a level of standards and certification or a 

private, quote, unquote, trainer, training facility or training company to make sure that these dogs, these canine potential officers, 

are up to par, that it is not something that folks get a—I mean, 

someone goes out and gets incorporated and then—

Ms. RECKNOR. Right. 

Mr. MEEK. —they are selling dogs to law enforcement agencies, 

and we expect for them to be able to detect explosives or what have 

you. 

Ms. RECKNOR. I think one of the reasons why the federal agencies have not partnered with private companies is because they 

know of all the rogue companies that exist. And I can not blame 

them. I go up against them every day for contracts with private 

companies. 

And they undercut us because they go to the pound, they get 

their dogs, and they use pseudo-explosives. We pay top dollar for 

the dogs and top dollar to maintain them. So I think once the 

standard’s in place, you will see the federal agencies welcome, 

hopefully, the partnership. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you. 

Chief? 

Chief WILSON. Representative Meek, what has happened since 9/

11 is that there has been additional resources that has flowed toward transit. But internally in transit, because the economy 

slowed, that our budget actually was cut. 

And the way I have staffed the canine positions is I have taken 

officers from the regular patrol force and put them in the canine 

function, at the cost of lowering the number, reducing the number, 

of patrol officers. 

And I have been able to live with it to about where I am at this 

point. What has happened is the time to train the canine handler 

and to retrain them has taken away from my day-to-day ability to 

patrol and answer calls, and all those things that you know from 

being a trooper that you just have to do. 

What would help me now is not only the availability of getting 

good certified dogs that I will be willing to bet people’s lives on, but 

also a way to fund the staff to support those dogs. And when I say 
53

20 more dogs, I am at eight right now. We are going to try to push 

to 10. 

But at that point, I just can not go any further because I have 

not got any other staffing for the police department. In fact, I have 

lost staffing. Since 9/11 I have actually reduced the size of the department by 15 people, plus the people I have taken out of patrol 

to put into dog handling capabilities. I hope that answers your 

question. 

Mr. MEEK. It did. And I am glad you are dealing with it every 

day. I am glad that you are a part of this panel. 

I mean, with that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

But I believe that as this program, Mr. Chairman, continues to get 

more and more popular and useful to law enforcement in helping 

us protect America, standards is going go be important. 

We can not legislate morals and character, but we can definitely 

legislate standards. If private companies or public facilities such as 

our own in-house federal training areas—if they have to reach certain standards, too, they should be the same. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. I thank the gentleman. 

I would like to address the same question to the Chief and Dr. 

Moriarty that I did to Ms. Recknor, and that is who do you think 

the appropriate certification entity is or should be? 

And, Chief Wilson, you first. 

Chief WILSON. From my knowledge of working with these programs since 1998, I think the appropriate agency would be the 

TSA. I think the TSA dogs are—in my opinion, the re-certification 

is very important. 

But I also think that as far as being high profile, in the public 

view and what they have been able to do, I would think it would 

be the TSA, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Dr. Moriarty, same question. 

Mr. MORIARTY. It was my understanding that one of the missions 

of this scientific working group that was being established was to 

address the issue of standards. And I certainly agree with the chief 

that TSA has a lead role. Whether they should be the only player 

in that discussion I am having a little bit of a problem with. 

I think there should be a mix of those key agencies and representatives from quality programs such as the university and the 

private sector who should have a seat at the table to make sure 

the standards and the bar is high. 

Mr. ROGERS. But you do think that there should be a uniform set 

of standards? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Absolutely, no argument. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. And you think that it may be some entity 

that has yet to be fashioned that would establish those standards? 

Mr. MORIARTY. I do not know enough on that one, Mr. Chairman, 

to answer. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right. I would like to ask you, Dr. Moriarty, 

about the cost of your dogs. For you to breed dogs, what does it 

cost? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Okay. It depends if we are training, for example, 

a drug dog or an explosive dog. Explosive dogs, having longer training, is a little bit more expensive. The cost of that is about $14,000. 
54

Now, that is full cost. That includes the direct costs of training. 

It includes the overhead. It includes the administrative costs. So it 

is full cost accounting. But that is for a 10-week program. 

Mr. ROGERS. Of breeding? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Well, that includes the breeding. It includes the 

dog and the canine handler training. 

Mr. ROGERS. If Ms. Recknor wanted to purchase a dog from you, 

how much would it cost? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Just purchase a dog without the training? 

Mr. ROGERS. Correct. 

Mr. MORIARTY. $3,200 to $3,600. 

Mr. ROGERS. And how does that compare to what you are paying 

in Europe, Ms. Recknor? 

Ms. RECKNOR. Actually, it is pretty close for a dog that is 1.5 

years to 2 years and ready to go. 

Mr. ROGERS. But now, yours will be trained. 

Ms. RECKNOR. Ours are trained just on the seek methods. I 

mean, we already know that they are going to work because Tony 

tests them all over there, so we already know that they are going 

to work. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

And last question, Dr. Moriarty—we have got to be out of here 

for another hearing that is going to be in this room in about 6 minutes or 7 minutes. Which do you think is the higher priority at 

your facility? Is it growing the breeding program or growing the 

training program? 

Mr. MORIARTY. Well, it is hard to separate that. What we do best 

is breeding the animals and training them. We have a very highly 

trained—as I mentioned, 200 years of collective experience in our 

senior staffers. 

So I would not want to separate the two entities, because breeding the dogs and then distributing them for training elsewhere is 

a need, but I think the benefits to a university, particularly taking 

the research, putting that into the training, and then getting the 

lessons learned out of the training and pulling that back into research to find solutions—that is the value added that we bring. 

Mr. ROGERS. Are there any other universities doing what you are 

doing? 

Mr. MORIARTY. No, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

I want to thank the panelists. You all have been great. This has 

been very informative and helpful to us. 

I would like to remind the Members that if they would like to 

submit additional questions—and you may get some additional 

questions from Members that could not be here because of conflicts—we are going to leave the record open for 10 days. 

And if you could reply to those in written responses, I would appreciate that. 

And we would, again, ask that you exit quickly since we have to 

be out of here—me, too—for this next hearing. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ