U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–507 PDF 2018

INNOVATIONS IN SECURITY: EXAMINING THE USE 

OF CANINES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

PROTECTIVE SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 3, 2017 

Serial No. 115–49 

(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) 

Serial No. 115–31 

(Committee on Homeland Security) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez,California 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA General Counsel 

CHRISTINA AIZCORBE, Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee Staff Director 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Val Butler Demings, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

RON ESTES, Kansas 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

STEVEN S. GIAIER, Deputy General Counsel 

KRISTA P. HARVEY, Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee Staff Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY 

JOHN KATKO, New York, Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

RON ESTES, Kansas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 3, 2017 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Sheila Goffe, Vice President, Government Relations, American Kennel 

Club 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Lieutenant Scott R. Smith, Orlando Police Department, Orlando, Florida 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Cynthia M. Otto, DVM, Ph.D., Executive Director, Penn Vet Working Dog 

Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

APPENDIX 

Letter of September 29, 2017, from the Transportation Security Administration submitted by Ms. Demings .......................................................................... 56 

Response from Ms. Goffe, American Kennel Club, to Questions for the Record 59 

Response from Dr. Otto, Penn Vet Working Dog Center, to Questions for 

the Record ............................................................................................................. 61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

INNOVATIONS IN SECURITY: EXAMINING THE 

USE OF CANINES 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, JOINT

WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND

PROTECTIVE SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary J. Palmer [chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Palmer, Katko, Grothman, Rogers, Higgins, Estes, Demings, Watson Coleman, DeSaulnier, and Keating. 

Mr. PALMER. The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs of 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security of the Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare clarify a recess at any time. 

Before I begin my opening remarks, I would like to recognize the 

United States Capitol Police Canine Technician Jason Conlon and 

his four-legged partner, Jax. Thank you for coming. And Jax is 

pretty popular in this hearing. 

I thank you both for attending today’s hearing. I think I speak 

for all of my colleagues here today when I say thank you for all 

you do to protect the complex and this Nation. And having been 

one of the Republican members on the baseball field that morning, 

I know the willingness of the Capitol Police to pay the ultimate 

sacrifice for us. And that is literally what Officers Griner and Bailey did. They put themselves in harm’s way for us, and we are all 

profoundly grateful for the service of our Capitol Police. 

Technician Conlon and Jax are an important reminder that canines are an integral part of our national security framework and 

serve in all levels of our government. From the United States Capitol to local municipalities, canine teams are working to save lives 

every single day. Dogs like Jax provide unmatched capabilities to 

secure our safety, including the detection of explosives, narcotics, 

concealed humans, currency, firearms, electronics, and chemicals, 

and are also used in search-and-rescue missions. Simply put, canines are an invaluable asset to our country. 

Over recent years, international demand for canines has increased dramatically. Experts report that this heightened demand 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

has led to a shortage of suitable canines, making it difficult for the 

United States Government to obtain the working dogs it needs. 

TSA has reported that the Federal Government is working to improve and expand relationships with domestic vendors. This is a 

step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done. Efforts 

to obtain more dogs have reportedly been slow to materialize. In 

a May 18, 2017, hearing, TSA’s Threat Assessment Division Director Melanie Harvey testified that TSA is working very closely with 

domestic vendors to build up the canine supply but has not identified a large enough supply to domestically do that. 

Industry professionals and domestic vendors have also reported 

difficulties in working with the government’s canine procurement 

programs, citing challenges in getting their dogs accepted for work. 

We are hoping today’s hearing will serve as a starting point toward resolving those challenges. My primary hope for this hearing 

is that it will help us evaluate how we can increase the use of canines in areas that are clearly vulnerable to attack, including public areas of our airports, train stations, as well as other areas with 

high concentrations of people. To that end, we have a diverse panel 

of professionals today who will present information and ideas about 

how our government uses canines. And I look forward to hearing 

what they have to say. 

We must ensure that government agencies are able to purchase 

qualified canines so that they can meet their critical national security missions. 

I thank Chairman Katko for his leadership and partnership on 

this issue. I thank Ranking Member Demings. I have had conversations, extensive conversations, with both of them that really led to 

this hearing. And I am very grateful for the work that they put in 

on this. 

Clearly, this is an area that we can all agree deserves our attention and support. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs. Demings, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses for joining us here today. 

Before we begin, I do want to take just a moment to acknowledge 

the tragedy that occurred in Las Vegas. I imagine that we all have 

reflected on what happened. And as a former chief of police, I can 

tell you I have had many sleepless nights wondering what I could 

do to keep my community safe, let alone trying to understand what 

would lead somebody to commit such an unspeakable act. 

When President John F. Kennedy was speaking of foreign 

threats, I believe his words go to the heart of what each first responder holds within to do their own work. I quote him: We shall 

pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship to keep America safe. 

With that, I turn back to the subject for which we are here today. 

On this day, we have the opportunity to discuss the crucial role 

that canine security plays in protecting our local airports, transportation hubs, sports arenas, stadiums, and other large venues. Prior 

to serving as Orlando’s police chief, I served as commander of the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Special Operations Division where I had the honor of managing our 

canine operation. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that more canine security is needed. I agree. Unfortunately, the President’s 

budget proposal would cut State and local programs. Under the 

budget proposal, TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams, which patrol public spaces in airports, train and bus 

stations, would be eliminated. 

Under the budget proposal, the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program, which provides support to local airports by 

placing local law enforcement teams alongside TSA checkpoint officers, would be gutted. This would cut $45 million in funding that 

reimburses local police departments for canine security at more 

than 300 local airports. I believe such cuts would put our State and 

local security forces in jeopardy. 

Our Nation’s security is my top priority and should be Congress’ 

number one priority. Congress must stand with State and local police. 

And with that, I again thank our chairman for this opportunity 

and thank our witnesses for sharing their testimony today. And I 

look forward to this very important discussion. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. I now recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Transportation and Protective Security, Mr. Katko, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I proceed, I do want to acknowledge the tragedy in Las 

Vegas. 

As a Federal organized crime prosecutor for 20 years, I made it 

my life’s mission to take dangerous weapons out of the hands of 

dangerous people. But this gentleman points up a specifically difficult person to detect, and we got to—we have to learn how to do 

better to detect people like that that have gone off the grid, so to 

speak. 

So, with that, I will talk to a little happier subject, and that is 

dogs. My dog, Sadie, is happy I am here today. I told, before I came 

down, my black lab, that I would be testifying—I would be asking 

questions of all of you, and she said to say hello. 

Canines are an essential asset to our national security. Due to 

their intelligence, superior sense of smell, and versatility, canines 

provide an unparalleled service to law enforcement. When canines’ 

natural abilities are supplemented by selective breeding, training, 

and cutting-edge developments in science, they became one of the 

most effective security tools for public safety. While the utility of 

one certain technology over another does ebb and flow based on 

how terrorists seek to do harm, the security benefits of canines will 

always been a crucial element to keeping Americans safe. And I 

want to commend my colleague to my left here, Mr. Rogers, who 

has been championing this cause for many years, at least since I 

have been in Congress the last 3 years, and I know long before that 

as well. 

The concept of a working dog is not unfamiliar to most Americans. They are a viable presence in airports, train stations, and 

other public areas. From my experience as chairman of the HomeVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28507.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

land Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation and 

Protective Security, I have seen firsthand the data proving the security effectiveness of canines in mitigating the rapidly evolving 

threat landscape facing America’s transportation systems. Oftentimes, canines present the most effective and efficient means of detecting new threats—again, I stress effective and efficient—as they 

can be retrained and deployed as new threat streams and terrorist 

tactics emerge. Canines are utilized in a variety of different settings and roles for the detection of people, narcotics, and explosives, and weapons of mass destruction, amongst many other items. 

As we strive to be proactive in mitigating threats to the traveling 

public in transit hubs, airports, and other venues, canines are an 

essential component of our ability to enhance security. Because of 

their versatility and reliability, canines are increasingly sought 

after by Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, as well as private stakeholders and foreign governments. This spike in demand 

for canines both domestically and internationally far outstrips our 

current ability to produce an adequate supply of dogs. The United 

States is competing with many other nations to procure canines 

that meet rigorous standards. And a shortage of quality dogs presents an impending security risk. In an era of heightened terrorist 

activities, it is critical that the domestic working canine industry 

has a robust development and training pipeline that feeds into a 

seamless procurement process. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to learn more about the challenges that the canine industry faces. We also want to ascertain 

how we can better develop a strategy and more reliable infrastructure for domestic breeders and training facilities. Lastly, we want 

to learn how the United States Government can better communicate its needs with its private sector canine partners to help facilitate future growth of this essential security asset. A strong domestic breeding industry not only makes all of us safer but creates 

new jobs and opportunities in our communities. I think it would be 

great if we got to a point where we stopped importing dogs from 

Belgium and wherever else and had the programs here and maybe 

got it to such point where we are exporting them around the world 

because the quality is that good. 

However, we have to make our government—we have to make 

sure our government is doing everything it can to present a strategic and comprehensive vision for its canine needs and that this 

vision is effectively communicated to the industry in order to foster 

necessary growth. 

We must also ensure that, with the rapid increase in demand for 

canines, we are ensuring the quality of our security standards and 

procuring only the most highly trained canines. We must also ensure that we are properly incentivizing breeders and trainers to 

meet the demand for canines today and far into the future. 

Ms. Goffe, Lieutenant Smith, and Dr. Otto, I encourage all of you 

today to be candid and frank in your testimony. We convene this 

hearing in order to hear directly from each of you about how Congress can better support this critical layer of our national security. 

We all share the same goals, and we all want to better understand 

what obstacles currently exist that may prevent the growth of our 

domestic canine industry. Canines are an invaluable safety and seVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28507.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

curity asset. And the need for more canines will only continue to 

grow. 

I would like to thank my colleagues Chairman Palmer, Ranking 

Member Demings, and Ranking Member Watson Coleman for joining me in calling for this hearing today. 

Security is not a partisan issue. That is one of the things we 

truly enjoy about Homeland Security is that it is not a partisan 

issue. And we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to advance important issues that affect the safety and security of all 

Americans. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of 

the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security, Mrs. 

Watson Coleman, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the members of both subcommittees for convening 

this hearing and to the witnesses for being here today. 

I would to begin by acknowledging Sunday’s horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas as well. Our thoughts and our prayers are with 

the victims, their families, and their loved ones. I also want to 

thank the law enforcement officers and first responders who bravely rushed to the scene and attended to the victims. 

While we are still learning the details of this tragic event, it is 

a sobering reminder of the harm a single actor can cause when he 

has violent intent and access to deadly weapons. 

Sunday’s attack comes a little more than a year after the Pulse 

nightclub shooting in Orlando. Until Sunday, the Pulse attack was 

the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. 

Lieutenant Smith, I understand you were part of the law enforcement response to that shooting, and I thank you for your service. 

While it may not be the stated topic of this hearing, considering 

recent events and the renewed urgency to take up comprehensive 

gun safety reform, Lieutenant Smith, I hope that we can hear from 

you today on some of the lessons you learned from that tragic experience and some of the suggestions you have for my colleagues here 

in Congress on what we can do to address this epidemic of gun violence. 

While we may never know what drove the killer to indiscriminately fire upon concertgoers, what is undeniable is that it terrorized innocent law-abiding citizens. Congress has an obligation to 

pass commonsense gun control reforms to reduce the lethality of future attacks. 

As a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation 

and Protective Service, I am all too familiar with the diverse security threats our Nation faces. While this shooting shows that any 

large gathering can be targeted for attack, terrorists continue to 

place particular importance an attacking transportation systems. 

Soft targets, such as subways, mass transit stations, and public airport areas, have been targeted in the United States and abroad. 

Securing these critical transportation systems requires a layered 

risk-based approach. While no one technology or solution can provide unbeatable scrutiny—security, canines have proven to be one 

of the most effective tools for securing large venues open to the 

public. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Under the Obama administration, the TSA more than doubled 

the size of its canine program, growing from the number of canine 

teams from 518 in 2008 to 1,047 in 2017. 

At my home airport of Newark Liberty International Airport, 

TSA now deploys 13 canines to support their operations. TSA provides an additional 20 canines to the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey for deployment at all of its transportation systems. 

Although I have been pleased by the continued investment in canines, I must note that they have been deployed disproportionally 

to securing aviation compared to other transportation sectors. TSA 

devotes more attention and resources to aviation than surface 

transportation in general. Many of the TSA’s technology that are 

in use at airport security checkpoints cannot be effectively integrated into bustling train stations and other active surface transportation venues. 

However, canines are mobile and able to detect explosives both 

on persons and in baggage. They work well in crowds, and they can 

be trained to detect evolving threats. There is also some evidence 

that they serve as a deterrent to those who may be planning an 

attack. TSA must devote more of its resources to securing surface 

transportation systems, particularly in light of AQAP’s publication 

of its latest issue of Inspire Magazine last August which encouraged and provided instructions for attacks against U.S. railways. 

Ensuring that there are dedicated canine resources available to 

help secure high-risk surface transportation would be a perfect 

place to start. 

To that end, I will be introducing a bill to revamp and invest in 

surface transportation security programs in the near future, and I 

hope my colleagues would give it their support. 

Again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today, and 

I look forward to learning more about the capabilities and the contributions of canines to our national security. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentlewoman. 

I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. Ms. Sheila Goffe, vice 

president of government relations for the American Kennel Club; 

Lieutenant Scott Smith of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department; 

and Dr. Cynthia Otto, executive director of the Penn Vet Working 

Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary 

Medicine. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to Oversight Committee rules, all witnesses will be 

sworn in before they testify. 

Please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear to—or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Thank you. 

The record will reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. As a reminder, turn on your microphones when you are 

testifying. The clock in front of you shows your remaining time for 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

giving your testimony. The light will turn yellow when you have 30 

seconds left and red when your time is up. And then the gavel will 

remind you that the light turned red. 

I would like to recognize the witnesses for the testimony. Ms. 

Goffe, if you would. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA GOFFE 

Ms. GOFFE. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Chairman Katko, 

Ranking Members Demings and Watson Coleman, and other distinguished guests. It’s a pleasure to be here in Washington today. And 

on behalf of the American Kennel Club, I thank you for the opportunity to share with you some of our concerns and experiences with 

respect to the need, demand for, and use of military working dogs, 

particularly explosive detection dogs, and ways that improving the 

domestic sourcing of detection dogs can help protect our national 

security. 

The American Kennel Club was founded in 1884 by a group of 

sportsmen and dog enthusiasts who wished to record and preserve 

the bloodlines of their working dogs and advance the capabilities 

for future generations. Today, more than 130 years later, the AKC 

remains dedicated to protecting and advancing the unique capabilities of purpose-bred dogs as part of our mission of promoting purebred dogs and thoughtful, purposeful breeding for type and function. 

The AKC is a not-for-profit organization and national club of 

more than 5,000 member and affiliated clubs around the country. 

In 2016, AKC sanctioned 22,000 dog-related events throughout the 

country in disciplines ranging from confirmation dogs shows to 

field trials, agility, and obedience. 

Earlier this year, we established a competitive sport based on 

scent detection. AKC is also the largest all-breed registry in the 

world. We are dedicated to advocating for the purebred dog as a 

working and family companion, advocating for canine health and 

well-being, advancing the study and breeding of purebred dogs, and 

promoting responsible dog ownership. 

We have a long history of helping the government with military 

working dog programs. In World War II, some 17,000 AKC registered dogs served in the Dogs for Defense Program. In the last 

decade, AKC board member Carmen Battaglia has been an advisor 

to the TSA breeding program at Lackland Air Force Base providing 

expertise on breeding strategies and puppy-raising protocols, such 

as early neurological stimulation to improve long-term outcomes for 

successful military working dogs. 

Over the course of this interaction, AKC was asked how we 

might be able to assist the development and procurement of quality 

domestically bred dogs suitable for training as military working 

dogs. The AKC does not sell dogs nor do we seek to become a government contractor. The AKC brings a breadth of knowledge, a 

large network of breeders, and the expertise and ability to facilitate 

among a range of stakeholders. We see our role as a facilitator who 

can provide expertise and information to breeders to bring them toVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28507.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

gether with cutting-edge research in agencies that need very specific types of dogs that can succeed as military working dogs. 

As mentioned earlier, military working dogs play a critical role 

in our national security. According to sources within and outside 

the Federal Government, 80 to 90 percent of the dogs purchased by 

the Homeland Security and Department of Defense come from foreign sources. As Americans, we should be concerned that an extraordinarily high percentage of the dogs that serve on the front 

lines of protecting the public, our public institutions, and our national security are obtained from foreign sources. 

About a year ago, AKC formed a team to gather information 

about American use and procurement of explosive detection dogs, 

the challenges faced in having enough fully trained deployable dogs 

to meet demand, and how changes in breeding and procurement 

might improve outcomes. We have met with officials at the Department of Defense, the TSA, private vendors, government and private 

contractors, academia, and law enforcement. We found a range of 

concerns regarding an overreliance on foreign bred and procured 

dogs, a lack of transparency and consistency in the selection process for untrained, or green, dogs. We found high failure rates 

among both foreign and domestic dogs and procurement processes 

that intimidated potential suppliers and could favor foreign dogs 

over domestically bred dogs. We also heard concerns that outcomes 

from scientific research on improving performance and efficiency 

within our training programs were not being implemented consistently. 

In March, AKC hosted the U.S. Dog Detection Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. The conference assembled key stakeholders 

from government, academia, the private sector to discuss ways that 

AKC could provide dogs to protect the safety and security of the 

United States and advance the concept of a working dog center of 

excellence. 

We plan to make this conference an annual event and would like 

to extend an invitation to the conference and to members of the 

House Homeland Security Oversight and Government Reform Committees and the appropriate staff to attend our next conference. 

At this conference, and I note Dr. Cindy Otto will also speak 

about this, we looked at a number of challenges and a number of 

opportunities. We looked at ways that we could come together to 

provide the expertise, the knowledge, the training, the cutting-edge 

science all together as part of a center for canine excellence for 

working dogs. We plan to continue to work towards that future. 

And I would be very happy to answer any questions you might 

have about the specifics of the plans to bring together this expertise and the ways that we would like to be able to assist in this 

process. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Goffe follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 28507.001
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 28507.002
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 28507.003
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 28507.004
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 28507.005
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 28507.006
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 28507.007
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 28507.008
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 28507.009
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 28507.010
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 28507.011
20 

Mr. PALMER. The chair recognizes Lieutenant Smith for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT SCOTT R. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Palmer. 

And I would also like to thank the members of the subcommittees for inviting me here today, and specifically Ranking Member 

Demings. The connection is not lost on me, why I am sitting here 

in front of you. 

My name is Scott Smith. I’m a lieutenant with the Orlando Police Department. I have been in law enforcement for 25 years, all 

of which have been done in Orlando, Florida. 

Throughout the years, I have had an opportunity to hold a variety of jobs within our agency. But by far, the most rewarding and 

the most challenging has been supervising the canine unit. I would 

like to take the next couple of minutes to explain to you our uses 

of canine in Orlando and also explain a couple of unique security 

concerns in the central Florida region and how we address those 

with the canines. 

The Orlando Police Department utilizes 14 full-service canines in 

their day-to-day operations. These full-service canines are primarily used to support patrol personnel in search and apprehension of criminals. They are trained and tested in disciplines such 

as area searches, building searches, tracking, and apprehension. In 

addition to the above functions, each of these canines also possess 

a secondary specialty and are trained in either narcotics detection 

or explosive detection. 

Over the years, as the paradigm has shifted from a war on drugs 

to a war on terror, so too is our focus on secondary specialties. In 

the early years of our program, almost all of our canines were 

trained on narcotics detection. Now, in the aftermath of such 

events as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Manchester 

Arena bombing, Brussels Airport, and the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, France, that used numerous suicide vests, the Orlando Police Department Canine Unit concentrates heavily on the 

explosive detection specialty. 

In addition to the 14 full-service canines that I mentioned above, 

the Orlando Police Department also utilizes four single-purpose explosive detection dogs. These four canines are only trained on explosive odor and were specifically purchased to bolster the security 

measures at Orlando International Airport. They maintain a visible 

presence throughout the airport and actively sweep passengers in 

common landside areas, such as ticketing, baggage claim, and the 

food and retail areas. 

As has been demonstrated in past terror events, whether it’s 

ISIS or a lone extremist, mass transit facilities such as an international airport are a favorite target. It can shut down an entire 

transit system as well as ensure a large amount of casualties. 

Due to the unique tourism industry of central Florida, Orlando 

International Airport has continued to grow and has set daily passenger records throughout 2017. In addition, the Orlando International Airport is currently in phase 1 of a brandnew international terminal scheduled to open in 2020. With the expansion 

of the airport and the increased passenger numbers it will bring, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

the demand for security screenings will only increase. Local and 

Federal agencies will be forced to grow in order to support these 

security demands. By utilizing canine assets, agencies can offset 

manpower demands and screen a wide number of people faster. 

In addition to our international airport, central Florida is home 

to several of the top tourist destinations in the world. For the past 

3 years, the central Florida region has surpassed its tourist numbers from 62 million in 2014 to 68 million in 2016. On a daily 

basis, local law enforcement canine teams are patrolling theme 

parks such as Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, and Sea 

World. And at times, a particular theme park can register as many 

as a quarter of a million guests in their parks at one time. 

Due to these numbers, some of these theme parks even supplement the law enforcement explosive detection teams with their own 

supply of explosive detection canines. And although these personnel are not sworn law enforcement, it enables the theme parks 

to show a greater presence and screen a greater number of visitors 

at their turnstiles. 

On top of the concentration of theme parks in central Florida, 

Orlando is also a host to a number of collegiate and professional 

athletic events. Our explosive detection dogs sweep 41 home games 

for the Orlando Magic, 19 home games for Orlando City Soccer, 12 

for Orlando Pride, plus 3 NCAA Bowl games. Orlando is also currently the host city for the NFL Pro Bowl. 

Attendance at these games can range from 5,000 to 70,000. Numbers like those seen at theme parks and sporting events are often 

too tempting to ignore for an extremist or an individual. The visible 

presence and active screening of canine teams at choke points at 

these venues is an invaluable deterrence to the safety of the visitors. 

Lastly, as everyone knows, on June 12, 2016, Orlando fell victim 

to the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. A selfradicalized extremist murdered 49 victims at a small nightclub just 

outside downtown Orlando. 

The terrorists boldly made claims of possessing suicide vests as 

well as having a car bomb parked outside. Several canine teams 

from different agencies across central Florida responded to that 

event. The suspect’s car was swept, as well as key areas around 

night—around the nightclub, such as command posts, staging 

areas, and—sorry—excuse me—and staging areas. Ultimately, his 

claims of explosives proved to be false. But the use of responding 

canine teams helped alleviate the concerns of first responders 

about secondary devices and allowed them to concentrate on the 

terrorist himself. 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the ever-changing tactics 

used by extremist groups who frequently seek out soft targets with 

large number of victims. The threat to these targets can be greatly 

mitigated by the use of explosive detection canines. The simple site 

of a canine vehicle or a canine team patrolling the choke point can 

deter even the most dedicated terrorist if they believe they will be 

detected before they can cause the greatest amount of damage. 

Those who seek to harm us need to know we will use the best assets available to prevent their attacks and preserve life. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity 

to speak in front of you, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 28507.012
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 28507.013
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 28507.014
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 28507.015
27 

Mr. PALMER. I thank for the gentleman for his testimony. 

The chair recognizes Dr. Otto for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. OTTO, DVM, PH.D. 

Dr. OTTO. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and members of 

the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

The Penn Vet Working Dog Center is the Nation’s premiere research and educational facility dedicated to harnessing the unique 

strengths of our canine partners and producing an elite group of 

scent detection dogs for public health and safety. 

The Working Dog Center is a living laboratory where we study 

and test strategies to optimize canine health and performance from 

8 weeks of age through career entry. Early training provides a positive learning environment and mitigates problems. This, combined 

with placing dogs in their chosen careers, ranging from explosive 

detection to cancer detection, has resulted in 93 percent of our dogs 

graduating into detection careers. 

Dogs are a force multiplier. Dogs are diverse in their skills. And 

applications in which dogs support national security directly and 

indirectly are constantly expanding. The most obvious direct applications are the explosive detection canine and the law enforcement 

canine. Many of the other jobs, such as narcotics detection, agriculture, search and rescue, human remains detection, and even 

conservation dogs indirectly support national security. The demand 

for working dogs in other fields is also great. 

Dogs that could serve in national security careers may instead be 

sold to organizations or individuals that utilize dogs for other detection roles, hunting, or sport. Overall, there is a great and increasing demand for dogs with the health, behaviors, and skills 

necessary for a wide array of working careers, and currently, there 

is no comprehensive plan to increase the supply of these invaluable 

canines or conduct the research to enhance their success. 

With a high demand for dogs, one of the challenges faced is the 

affordable procurement of healthy dogs capable of performing the 

tasks required. In seeking a solution, we must consider the cost of 

the dogs and the source of the dogs. 

There are several components that contribute to the cost of a 

dog. The first is in identifying dogs for potential purchase. The purchase price of both successful dogs and those that eventually fail 

must also be tracked. Once a dog is acquired, the expensive training, medical care, housing, transportation, and working lifespan of 

the dog should be included. Finally, one of the biggest factors in 

the cost of the working dog is the cost of the human partner. 

In summary, the initial price of the dog is a small fraction of the 

total cost of employing a detection canine. Wise choices on the 

health and training of the dogs and selection of the handler can 

help to reduce the lifetime costs of dogs. 

The main options for sourcing dogs are imports, domestic breeders, shelter dogs, or a dedicated breeding program. Traditionally, 

the majority of dogs for the U.S. military and domestic law enforcement agencies have been imported. Challenges with imports stem 

from a lack of control over genetics, health, environment, and availability. The current challenge with relying on domestic breeders is 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

production of top hunting dogs is typically their primary goal, thus 

cost and selection criteria often don’t align with government needs. 

A shelter model is emotionally appealing but limited by cost and 

availability of appropriate dogs, making it unsuitable as a primary 

source of dogs. 

A dedicated breeding program would allow for control of genetics, 

environment, and training, and potentially meet the demands for 

dogs in a variety of careers. Development of a breeding cooperative 

would allow breeders and organizations to sell dogs that meet the 

health, behavioral, and genetic requirements. For this program to 

be effective, additional and ongoing research will be necessary. 

In conclusion, to improve the availability and success of working 

dogs, supporting our national security in an efficient and cost-effective manner, sound scientific principles must be applied to all aspects of dog selection, training, and deployment. To achieve the full 

potential, a federally hosted collaboration between academic institutions, government agencies, organizations, breeders, and industry 

to create a national detection dog center of excellence is critical. 

The center of excellence would research, validate, and disseminate 

best practices to advance the scientific approach to dog selection, 

care, and training. 

Furthermore, to address the impending crisis of detection dog 

availability, a new cooperative model of detection dog breeding, 

early training, and distribution must be critically evaluated. Included in the documents is a white paper describing a cooperative 

breeding program that we presented at the AKC summit last 

March. 

We thank you for the opportunity to present and welcome your 

questions and comments. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Otto follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 28507.016
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 28507.017
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 28507.018
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 28507.019
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 28507.020
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 28507.021
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 28507.022
36 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Katko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goffe, when I was—when you were speaking, you reminded 

me of one of my early jobs as a young teenager working at AKC 

events in the central New York area. I was excited to go work with 

dogs until I got there and found out what the job was. Wearing a 

white coat and a large shovel and a big bucket, you can guess what 

I had to do all day every day. But it was—it’s an early exposure 

to AKC and the professionalism of the organization. And I am impressed with that. 

Dr. Otto, your testimony was excellent, and it was very helpful, 

because we do need a blueprint. And I think we all agree that increasing the use of canines in law enforcement and antiterror efforts is preferable over fancy new machines that rarely work as advertised. And they are more pliable, more able to adapt, and costeffective as well. So I don’t think there is an argument about that. 

The question is, why aren’t we getting there? And you both 

touched on it. But I think one of the big things that I’m concerned 

with is some of the bottlenecks and some of the inconsistencies and 

some of the sheer incompetence in the procurement process. We see 

that again and again in Homeland Security and other areas. But 

a procurement process with respect to the dogs provides a disincentive for breeders to get into this field. So we got to fix that. And 

I’d like to hear from you about that. And then if there’s anything 

you’d like to drill down on with respect to your testimony, Dr. Otto, 

I’d like to hear that. 

So, Ms. Goffe, if you want to expound on the procurement process 

for me, first, that’d be helpful. 

Ms. GOFFE. Absolutely. Thank you. 

To start with, for the procurement process, we have been looking 

at the opportunity to acquaint and bring many of the breeders in 

our network into this process. One of the issues that we’ve had is 

severalfold. One, we have many, many small breeders throughout 

the country who provide the types of dogs that would potentially 

be ideal for this process. But they don’t breed a lot of dogs. They 

do breed high-quality dogs. So they don’t necessarily have the resources. They can be intimidated in some cases by the government 

contracting process. 

As you know, the government contracting process has historically 

looked for large quantities of dogs. And one of the ways that we 

think we can help address this problem is to make some changes 

in the processing—or the contract process—program so that small 

breeders potentially working together can actually provide dogs 

that are needed—the type of dogs that are needed. 

Another comment that we heard was from some vendors around 

the country who had mentioned that, in order to scale up, to develop the types of dogs with the health protocols, you know, the scientific background, looking at the genetics of the dog, looking at 

the pedigrees of the dog, making sure that these dogs were healthy 

physically and mentally able to stand up to the rigors of day on, 

day off in various types of conditions out there sniffing for explosives, that they needed a larger facility, a strong breeding program. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Unfortunately, what they found was that small business set-asides 

got in the way of their ability to do that. When they expanded to 

a certain level to have the expertise that they needed to scale up, 

if you will, they were no longer a small business. 

That has also brought forward the question of when you consider 

that detection canines are a critical national security resource, 

should they potentially be identified under a different NAICS code? 

Currently, they are identified as live animals, which would be the 

same as any other animal in acquisition processes. But these animals are different. They are a key part of national security so that 

the people who are providing them very well may need to have a 

different level of category for what—costs to the small business. 

Mr. KATKO. Ms. Goffe, just to follow up, and then, Dr. Otto, I 

think I’ll have to ask for your response in writing, if you would, because I’m going to run out of time if it is not covered later in the 

hearing. 

Just a question for you, Ms. Goffe, to follow up what you were 

saying. Do you find that different agencies have different standards, and does that contribute to the problem? 

Ms. GOFFE. We have—yeah. We have interviewed a number of 

people, and we have found that there have been—has been a lot 

of inconsistency, actually within and across agencies. There has 

been some frustration among people who would like to provide dogs 

that they have bred, provided the dogs, gone down, in many cases, 

to Lackland or somewhere where the dogs would be evaluated. And 

they have not had a consistent testing experience. The concerns 

have involved complaints that the protocols used were not realistic 

to the needs of what that dog would actually be expected to do on 

a day-to-day basis. We have also heard that they were rejected 

without a full explanation. And part of the concern—we understand—you know, not all dogs are going to make it. These are very, 

very specialized dogs. But we think to advance the knowledge and 

the learning and our ability to really have good detection dogs, 

we’re going to want to have feedback from the Federal agencies so 

we can work together, make sure that our breeders know exactly 

what it is that is required in what is considered to be an untrained 

dog. So we’re not talking about high-level security, high-level training. We’re talking about basic training for these dogs, just socialization, environmental stability, the mental and physical capabilities to do what they need to do on a daily basis. And we are hearing that the evaluations have been inconsistent. 

It is true that some of this is subjective. You’ve heard the old 

comment that, if you have three trainers in a room, two of them 

will agree that the other one is doing something wrong. But from 

the perspective of science and national security, we think that part 

of what a center for excellence can do is to establish standards that 

are a baseline to every dog, every green dog should be able to accomplish to make it to that first level of being accepted into a 

training program, and then you can carry on with additional training. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Ms. Goffe. 

I have many other questions, but my time has expired. So I yield 

back. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentlelady 

from Florida, Mrs. Demings, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, to our witnesses, thank you all for being here. 

Lieutenant Smith, it’s good to see you again, and I will start with 

you. 

Could you please again for us just talk about the critical role 

that canines play in the safety of the traveling public? And then 

if you would also talk a bit about where the Orlando Police Department procures its canines and if you’ve seen any difference between 

U.S.—dogs from the U.S. versus dogs from other places, like Europe. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, ma’am. 

As far as our use in Orlando, like I had just—in my opening 

statement, the Orlando International Airport, we just procured 

those four single-purpose dogs. So that’s a new program from us, 

and that—I know there’s a trademark here somewhere, but it’s— 

Vapor Wake terminology is what those dogs were. So that’s new 

training, new technique. 

The other 14 dogs that I talked about, they are used throughout 

the city in different venues to include those arenas or sporting complexes. And in downtown Orlando, you obviously know the Dr. Phillips Center, Performing Arts Center, a lot of the vigils that we have 

or the large, you know, runs or Lake Eola-type thing, Fourth of 

July celebrations, anywhere that’s going to draw thousands of people, we will use those dogs in a pre-sweep. And I think that’s important. People walk by—it’s same as Jax over here. Everybody 

walks in, and they recognize the canine. They see it right away. I 

think they see, you know, the uniform if it says ‘‘canine’’ on there. 

And I addressed it earlier about a vehicle—when you park a vehicle in front of some place, like an airport terminal or something 

like that, and it has ‘‘canine’’ in red, that’s a deterrent. You know, 

whether or not that canine is right there, as somebody drives up 

and they see that, they’re going to think twice, whether it’s is a 

pre-surveillance thing, an intelligence-gathering thing. You know, 

unfortunately, it will only displace it. It may not prevent it entirely. But when they see it, they may pick something else besides 

the large-scale mass-casualty place. 

The other part of your question was? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Procurement. 

Mr. SMITH. Procurement. 

For our full-service dogs, we go through third-party vendors. 

They’re kind of—once you find a good one, you want to keep your 

hands on them. We have gone through a few vendors over the 

years that I have been there. And I’m sure yourself—you’ll get a 

couple of good dogs. And then, after that, the quality kind of deteriorates. You know, the quantity is definitely there. The dogs are 

there. But it is the quality. 

When the use of military working dogs and police working dogs 

really took off, we saw a decline in the age of the dogs that we were 

getting, as a local agency. I think a lot of them were being used 

in the military, and those vendors chose to sell to them first. And 

then some of the dogs that we got were—instead of being 2, 2–1/ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

2, they started to be a year and a half old or maybe just a little 

older. And you start to get too young, and then you run the risk 

of actually breaking the dog. You know, the socialization and the 

hard work and stuff, they won’t respond to the discipline that you 

put on them. So—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. Otto, first of all, I want to thank you so much for the work 

that you’re doing through your nonprofit. Would you agree that 

many Federal agencies use highly trained dogs for a variety of missions? 

Dr. OTTO. Yes, absolutely. I think that’s one of the things that 

we need to consider is that we’re not just selecting for one type of 

dog. So there may be different criteria for different agencies because they have different missions. And one of the really important 

things about a national center of excellence is that we can consider 

the phenotype type, which is that external expression of the behavior, and associate that with the genotype, which is the genetic 

underpinnings, and we can start to actually select dogs for the jobs 

that we need them to be in. And if we have a litter of puppies, we 

know they’re not all going to be identical. And so there may be 

some dogs that do wonderful passenger screening and others that 

do person-borne explosives and some that might actually just need 

to go to another agency that is looking for support dogs for veterans with PTSD. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you know if agencies have developed test 

standards for their canine units that vary according to the mission? 

Dr. OTTO. I don’t know specifically. I know that one of our big 

missions is to actually collect the data because people don’t quantitatively evaluate those characteristics. A lot of people will take a 

test that another organization has used, whether it’s relevant or 

not. And one of our big research questions is, what’s the appropriate test, what’s the screening that best predicts success in the 

field that those dogs will end up working in? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Estes, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ESTES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

My first question is for Dr. Otto. You know one of the things we 

talked about is the acceptance rate of U.S.-bred dogs is much lower 

than some of the dogs procured from overseas, particularly Europe. 

What are some of the best practices that we could put in place 

to help improve that acceptance rate? 

Dr. OTTO. First, I think we have to define the acceptance rate. 

I think a lot of people are screening dogs looking for specific things. 

And we’re not breeding those dogs or preparing those dogs for jobs 

in the government. So I think that’s the first place that we need 

to go. And I think that if we’re starting to look at what the jobs 

are and, again, looking at those expectations, that phenotype, we 

can really impact the dogs early on. 

In our program, we start training our dogs at 8 weeks of age. 

And as a result of that, we’re able to mitigate a lot of problems that 

are things that are keeping dogs from being successful, like enviVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28507.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

ronmental sensitivity. So, from the time our dogs are 8 weeks, 

they’re going on linoleum floors; they’re climbing metal stairs. 

They’re used to these environments. They’re able to actually enter 

the workforce at 12 to 18 months. 

We’re also using positive reinforcement training. So that is a 

really important factor in allowing these dogs, when they are 

young, to be successful in these pretty intense careers. As long as 

they’re loving what they’re doing, it really is something that they 

are thriving at. 

Mr. ESTES. Thank you. 

Ms. Goffe, you—we talked about the government procurement 

process, and that was one of the questions you were asked. You 

know, are there improvements that we can use in identifying our 

standards that we need to acquire to and from? And what are some 

things that we could do in that regards? 

Ms. GOFFE. Yes, I think there are some improvements. And I 

would also just like to say, I think one of the areas that we can 

improve is that, when we’re currently obtaining dogs from overseas, we’re getting them at 12 months of age. And to Dr. Otto’s 

point and to several other points, when we get them at 12 months 

of age, they then go into a training program almost immediately. 

One of the things that we find to be interesting is that, you know, 

most breeders already let their dogs go at about 12 weeks. So 

there’s this long period of time that, for the dogs that we’re, you 

know, obtaining overseas, we don’t know what’s happening in that 

period of time. It’s one of the challenges that we face. 

But, potentially, by getting more and working more to breed 

more dogs in the United States, we’re going to have a better oversight of what’s happening in that period of time. And that means 

better training, better socialization, to your other question, also potentially increasing the success rate, because it’s not what you’re 

picking up at 12 months like what you’re picking up overseas. 

We’re getting a dog that has—what we see is what we get at 12 

months but, rather, one that we can actually prepare for a much 

longer period of time to bringing—you know, to bringing that into 

the system. 

Mr. ESTES. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the—our ranking member, Mrs. Watson Coleman, from New Jersey for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A breeder typically—I want to talk about a breeder in this country. A breeder typically holds on to the dog and then will allow the 

dog be purchased at what age? Is it 8 weeks, 12 weeks? 

Ms. GOFFE. Yes. Typically—and, of course, it varies. But most 

breeders who are going to let a dog go let it go at about 8 to 12 

weeks of age, getting it to its new home to start socialization and 

training at that point. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

So, Lieutenant Smith, if the breeder is letting the dog become 

available between 8 and 12 weeks, do you purchase the dog at that 

age and then engage in a year’s worth of training? What happens 

in between—what happens before—between the time that the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

breeder has a dog that’s eligible to be purchased and you, the end 

user, actually gets it? 

Mr. SMITH. We may have to answer this jointly. But, from our 

end, the breeders—and, unfortunately, we do typically get ours 

from Europe through a third-party vendor. So the breeder is obviously in Europe. They’re raising it from a puppy up until probably 

about a year is when the vendor from, you know, the State of Florida is typically taking a trip to Europe. The dog is going to be 

about a year old. Vendors have certain tests that they will conduct 

with the breeders over there, whether or not they want to purchase 

it. You know, unfortunately, some of the third-party vendors are 

like used car salesmen. You know, they want to bring in as many 

dogs as they can and get rid of them as fast as they can. And some 

of their testing programs, you know, they’ll bring in dogs that don’t 

meet standards for local law enforcement. 

So then we’ll go through the vender, and we run our own series 

of tests to see if it’s a dog that we would want to employ 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. And then do your dogs get recertified— 

they get certified in a particular detection or whatever, and then 

do they get recertified? If so, how often? 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. So full purchase dogs, those 14 that I talked 

about—and, you know, they have a larger job. So that is standardized by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. And that’s 

480 hours of training. And that covers all those areas that I talked 

about, building searches, area searches, tracking, apprehension. 

Any odor work after that, narcotics or explosives, is another 160. 

So, you know, manpowerwise, Dr. Otto touched on the cost for 

the handler themselves being in training that long. You know, it’s 

probably about 4 to 5 months before—once we get the dog and that 

handler is on the street with that team. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So, Ms. Goffe, tell me this. What needs 

to be done so that a breeder would hold on—a breeder interested 

in having the dog purchased for security purposes, what would 

need to be done to make that happen? 

Ms. GOFFE. Right. Great question. There are a couple of things 

that we can do. One of the things we suggest is looking at the incentives currently. What we’re dealing with with a lot of the really 

wonderful hunting field trial dogs that we would normally be looking at, one of the problems is that a breeder can sell them at 12 

weeks for a comparable price that the government will pay at 12 

months. A breeder will say: Well, you know, I can hold this dog for 

another year, feed it, you know, train it, medical care, et cetera, 

and maybe the government will want it. Or I can sell it to this 

great home down the street that’s going to pay the same price. 

So, unfortunately, we have a rather—a disincentive for breeders 

to be selling to the government. Having said that, AKC has 

reached out, and we do know people are interested in doing this. 

One of the things that we think is a critical need—and this goes 

to your point earlier, what do we do in that year? What happens 

with the foreign dogs? We don’t know what happens with the foreign dogs in that period from 12 weeks to 1 year. But with the U.S. 

dogs, there are several programs out there that have developed relationships with prisons. So you have some prison socialization and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

training. We have found those to be very, very successful. Dr. 

Otto’s program has been—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I was going to ask Dr. Otto about a response to this question as well. 

Ms. GOFFE. Uh-huh. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. If you don’t mind. 

Dr. OTTO. I was dying to tell you. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I can tell. 

Dr. OTTO. Please ask me. Please ask me. 

At the beginning, that was really our big challenge. We figured 

we could get breeders to breed and then sell puppies at 8 to 12 

weeks. We knew we had people who wanted dogs at a year to 18 

months. And so our big challenge was, what happens in that time 

period? 

And the Penn Vet Working Dog Center has really been an experiment in what we can do. We found that it is so valuable to be able 

to have those dogs. And our dogs come every day to school and are 

trained and then go home and live with foster families. And so 

those dogs are able to be tweaked and adjusted and remedial efforts and everything, which is why we think they’re so successful. 

But it’s also very labor intensive. 

And one of our goals is to look at what the cost-effectiveness of, 

maybe, a prison program, but also maybe a partial prison program. 

Because we know the dogs in the prison programs don’t get the environmental exposure that sometimes we need. So some sort of 

melding of that. There may be kennel programs. There may be a 

lot of things that we have to research and ask the question: What’s 

the most effective? What is the most cost-effective and also 

trainingwise? But, I think, what we’ve missed out in so many of 

these programs is this early childhood development and our ability 

to really influence the dogs and set them up for success. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you. 

My time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The chair now recognizes my colleague from Alabama, Congressman Rogers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Chairman Palmer. And I want to thank 

you and Chairman Katko for calling this very important hearing. 

This is a subject that needs a lot more discussion and prominence 

with the public because I don’t think the public understands how 

scarce this resource is and how critically important it is to our national security. 

Lieutenant Smith, I didn’t hear you say where you procured the 

14 canines from. Where are they sourced from? 

Mr. SMITH. Typically, we have found several third-party vendors 

throughout the State of Florida. We’re currently using one in 

Miami, Florida, right now. We have a Local one in New Smyrna 

Beach. And then we’ve also used one in the panhandle near Tallahassee. But, again, all those vendors take their trips overseas, pick 

out their dogs, and bring them back. 

Mr. ROGERS. So they’re procuring them from overseas as well? 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Otto, one of the things that I have been advocating for in recent years is that we put more emphasis on domesVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\28507.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

tic breeding with the understanding that this would be a subsidized venture by the Federal Government with us getting first 

choice of the product. Why do you think that hasn’t happened as 

we have pushed for this? Why do you think that the universities 

and the marketplace have not formed a consortium to develop this 

breeding capacity domestically? 

Dr. OTTO. I think it’s a great question. And I think that timing 

is a lot, and the fact that a lot of the agencies weren’t talking to 

each other, and breeders weren’t talking. And this whole meeting 

that the AKC hosted was such a great revelation of getting all of 

the people in the same room so that we could have this discussion 

and come to the realization that we all need to work together. And 

I think having a center of excellence to kind of coordinate it—because, to be successful, we’re going to need a breeding co-op. And 

a breeding co-op means that we don’t have a centralized breeding 

source, but we have a mechanism to bring all these individuals in 

together to study it, collect data, look at the different programs of 

how to raise the dogs from that 8 weeks to the 12 months. And 

then, I call it Working Dog Finder, which is like Puppy Finder, 

where you actually have the organizations come in and say, ‘‘I need 

a dog that does this, this, and this,’’ and the consortium, the coop, has dogs that then they can match up so that we can actually 

funnel things. 

I think one of our challenges has been that we’ve been very narrow. It’s like: I only want to work with explosive detection dogs. 

Well, we know that not every dog is going to be successful in that 

realm. So we want to make sure that we bring in everybody. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the way I envision this—and I see the Vapor 

Wake explosive detection canines as the top tier, the Cadillac of explosive detection. And then you’ve got the passenger screening canines underneath that. But, in my experience—and I’ve been doing 

this a long time, dealing with this topic—that, even if a dog is not 

capable of those two careers, they can always drop down and be 

used on the border for drug detection and gun detection because 

the Customs and Border Protection are getting dogs from the local 

pound for that. So I don’t see that there would be any waste in a 

breeding program that we constructed. But what I hear repeatedly 

is, well, the reason why it hasn’t happened by the private sector 

is the business case doesn’t close. Well, I just think that’s because 

we haven’t developed the state-of-the-art dog that we can produce 

in this country, which brings me to my question. 

My understanding is that there really isn’t a collection of information about these different breeders, the lines that they’ve developed, to—that’s being centralized for researchers like you to study. 

Is that accurate? Or am I wrong? 

Dr. OTTO. That is accurate. We are certainly working. And, 

again, we’re looking at even the genetics. But until we can have 

that quantitative phenotype—so, in other words, we can tell specifically numerically what those traits are that we’re looking for—it’s 

really hard to look at the genetics and say we should breed this dog 

to this dog. The International Working Dog Breeding Association 

has come up with an incredible program where people can put in 

that information and learn what they call estimated breeding value 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

so we can make good selection based on those criteria. And that’s 

what’s going to move things forward. 

We know the TSA breeding program made incredible genetic advances over the 10 years that they were there, and that is the kind 

of thing that we need to be doing. But we need to be collecting the 

science. We need to have those markers, and we need to know 

what the genetics is. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that I submit my remaining questions to be provided to the witnesses for 

them to answer for the record. 

Mr. PALMER. We are going to have a second round—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Good. 

Mr. PALMER. —if you would like to ask those questions, you may 

do so, or we’ll put them in the record. 

Mr. ROGERS. I’ll wait for the second round. I can ask questions 

longer than they’ll put up with me. 

Mr. PALMER. With that, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. And there will be a second round of questions. 

Ms. Goffe, one of the issues that prevents increased utilization of 

domestically bred dogs is the age at which agencies are able to accept them. For many breeders, that doesn’t make sense, to hold 

onto a dog past 8 or 12 weeks when they are typically sent to their 

new homes for training, particularly for—training for detection or 

passenger screening. Can you discuss what, if any, steps the American Kennel Club is taking to try to bridge that gap? 

Ms. GOFFE. Several. A couple of the things that we have looked 

at, in addition to the aforementioned prison programs, working 

with some of the universities who are doing the ongoing training, 

doing a great job of that, is really working with our breeders to 

convince them to sign on to a program where the dogs that they 

are producing will be developed for this purpose. And so they are 

taking a longer term look at the puppy, particularly if the people 

who have, you know, a lot of family members who can help out 

with the socialization. You know, dog breeding is very much, in 

many parts of the country, still very much a family operation, so 

really holding onto them longer. And then what we envision is 

making sure that they have all of the knowledge, the science, the 

research they need to make those dogs as strong as possible. 

And part of that is by letting the government know, developing 

some kind of relationship, where, because you are able to provide 

a more stable—a dog with a lot more training time behind it, you’re 

going to have a greater success, we hope, with getting into the government program. So it’s not that disincentive of I should sell the 

dog at 12 weeks rather than waiting for 12 months. That’s one of 

the options. 

Also, our kennel clubs may provide additional options. 

And then, finally, we do have a lot of dedicated backers—exbreeders, who have aged out of breeding, but they are still very, 

very engaged with the dogs. These also present wonderful people 

to hold on to a puppy, to be, you know, puppy foster parents, if you 

will, for a year or so and really train them, socialize them, and to 

give back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Mr. PALMER. You said something earlier about a business model 

and that we don’t have a business model for that. Without going 

into a long, long answer, I would be interested to know what that 

business model would look like. And it seems, in listening to your 

answer then, that that’s one of the gaps that we have in getting 

the dogs that need to be trained for the kind of work that Lieutenant Smith does, that TSA needs done, or our armed services. Do 

you—is there a business model that you guys have come up with? 

Ms. GOFFE. We think a lot of it is about financial incentive, as 

well, frankly, the ability to do this, and to make a living at doing 

this. And one of the concerns that we’ve had where the dogs have 

been procured overseas is, while the government says that those 

dogs are cheaper, one of the things that has not been fully investigated is, are they, in fact, cheaper, and is the government able 

or paying what we should be paying for these highly valuable resources? It may be a case that the going rate for these dogs should 

be higher, particularly when you consider and you compare what 

we would be paying at 12 weeks for a puppy versus 12 months and 

compare what we’re paying to sustain overseas buying trips and all 

the additional costs that go along with foreign purchase versus domestic purchase. So we are actually very supportive of some language of Mr. Rogers and the Defense Authorization Act that investigates the differences in the costs and tries to set a more realistic 

cost for purchasing puppies at a later date where they’re ready to 

go. 

Mr. PALMER. I’m glad we’re going to do a second round because 

I want to continue to ask you, along this line, and I’ve got questions for Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Otto. And unlike some chairmen, I won’t take 10 minutes for 5. So I’m not calling any names. 

But if we had a different model where we kept these dogs longer 

so that they’re an appropriate age for this type training, and they 

didn’t measure up, would those animals still be—and, Dr. Otto, you 

can answer this—would those animals still be appropriate for a 

family to adopt or even be sold? Because most of these dogs are 

purebred, aren’t they? That you could still have a market for that 

so that you create a business model where, if the dog doesn’t pan 

out for service with Lieutenant Smith, the dog would still be a viable product that someone else might be interested in? 

Dr. OTTO. I can tell you that the list of people who want dogs 

that don’t make it in our program is really long. And because we’ve 

had very few dogs that don’t make it, we can’t even accommodate 

that. So there are definitely people who are interested. But, also, 

using the model where we can have the dogs if they’re not successful in this program, could they be successful in another? So, again, 

defining that phenotype for each and every one of these programs 

that’s using dogs, we can have dogs successful in a whole array of 

different careers, and then those that aren’t successful are going to 

be very attractive to people who maybe want to compete in sport 

or just really want a pet. Although, a lot of these dogs are pretty 

high energy. So they’re not your average pet. But they still are very 

appealing. 

Mr. PALMER. My point is not necessarily as a pet, but are they 

marketable? Because what you have here is an overhead cost, and 

a business is trying to reduce its overhead. So, if it’s got a primary 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

product that has a high spoilage rate, for instance, the overhead is 

higher. But if there’s a market for these dogs—and as Congressman Rogers pointed out—and we make this, from a price point 

worthwhile, it seems to me that there is a business model that 

could be developed that would make this work. 

We will now begin the second round of questions. 

I will recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I stand ready and 

willing to take any dogs that might be available because we have 

plenty of room in our yard. 

Anyways, Lieutenant Smith, I want to talk to you a little bit 

more about some kind of boots-on-the-ground examples of the procurement process and the cost-sharing issues, if any. Are you cost 

sharing? Are you collaborating with other agencies? So, with that 

in mind, I want to ask you, do you coordinate with any State, local, 

or Federal agencies in the procurement process? Or do you simply 

do it on your own? And, if you do, how is it working? 

Mr. SMITH. Sir, we do do it on our own. We call around to those 

vendors that we’ve used successfully in the past. And, again, sometimes we run into a shortage problem where they’re just out of 

dogs, and they haven’t taken their trip overseas, and their stock, 

they just don’t have it. We’ll have to look around a little more. 

We do collaborate after the purchase process on training because 

it’s not fiscally wise to run a 4- or 5-month training scenario with 

one dog and one, you know, cop. So we do call around to—whether 

it’s municipal or county agencies—to see who has new handlers. 

Basically, that’s the problem, is handlers come and go. Every once 

in a while, you’ll lose a dog from age or medical purposes, and then 

we’ll put on joint training classes to certify that team. 

Mr. KATKO. All right. So you have heard from Dr. Otto and Ms. 

Goffe today at length about the procurement processes and some 

of their suggestions. And it does sound like that is, again, where 

the problem is, you know, even for you, at the local level, right? 

Sometimes you can’t find a dog. So you’ve heard some of their suggestions. And I’d ask you to be frank and tell me, what do you 

think? 

Mr. SMITH. I think the business model is going to be a problem. 

I believe that is the main—I think that’s the main problem with 

people who get into the business model is—I referred to them as 

used car salesmen earlier. They’re not truly in it for the dog, and 

they’re not truly in it for our end purposes. They’re in it to make 

money. And in order to do that, they have to push a large amount 

of animals through their inventory quickly. And I think that goes 

to what, maybe, you were talking about, is, how cheap are these 

dogs? And why are they selling them so cheap in Europe? Because, 

realistically, if they’ve held on to them for a year and they’ve fed 

them and they’ve done the vet tests and everything like that, those 

prices probably should be higher. But, for whatever reason, they’re 

not. And that’s why we’re getting them from over there, because 

here, in the States, when you hold a puppy from 8 weeks to 12 

months, they have incurred that bill as the breeder. And they have 

to recoup that from us. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

So, you know, whether or not it’s the puppy mill terminology and 

they just don’t—they have a disregard for the animal itself, and 

those that don’t make it, who knows what happens to those dogs. 

You know, some of that probably does happen in Europe, where it’s 

not going to happen here in the States. 

Mr. KATKO. So any suggestions on how to address that issue? 

Mr. SMITH. Unfortunately, I think that’s well above an end-user 

person like myself. 

Mr. KATKO. You provided some pretty good insight, though, and 

I appreciate it. So—— 

Mr. SMITH. And thank you for the opportunity. But I really, 

like—I am stuck on how to solve that problem, because as an enduser, I wish we could get our hands on dogs easier and in that age 

range of a year and a half to 2 years, because we have had problems with getting them at a month old. You know, there are age 

determination problems, sometimes, when you get them from Europe. Oh, yeah, he’s 16 months old. And come to find out, he’s not 

really 16 months old. You know, he’s a year old. And that’s a problem. And we’ve wound up having to return dogs or retire them just 

because they didn’t make it through our training. 

And, obviously, the full-service training aspect of it is a little 

more strenuous than the single-purpose aspect of it. And they go 

through a lot more, and that’s some of the problems that we have. 

Mr. KATKO. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. 

Demings, for at least 5 minutes, maybe longer, since I got out of 

order. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I’ll take the 

full 15. 

I, again, want to thank our witnesses because this has just been 

so beneficial for us to hear some of the behind-the-scene processes 

and some of the challenges that we are facing. 

Dr. Otto, I think we’ll begin where we left off, and that’s involving the test standards. The TSA canine teams, of course, work in 

areas such as airports where there are a tremendous amount of 

distractions. And does it make sense to you that the TSA would develop test standards that reflect the unique conditions that their 

canines operate in? 

Dr. OTTO. Absolutely. I think it’s appropriate. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the 

record a letter from the TSA. 

Mr. PALMER. Without objection. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. 

And I’d like to share a quote from them that says: Canines displaying a minimum amount of reward, drive, and search behavior 

may be acceptable for a canine slated to work single-suspect vehicle 

or occasional VIP motorcades, but it would be unsuitable when the 

expectation is screening passengers at an airport checkpoint where 

the use of canines acceptable to screening persons is still relatively 

new to explosive detection canines. 

Dr. Otto, do you agree that more canine teams—or believe that 

more canine teams are needed at the State and local levels as their 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

responsibilities continue to grow? We’ve heard Lieutenant Smith 

share a little bit about the additional use of canines. 

Dr. OTTO. I think the demands are, you know, skyrocketing, and 

it certainly makes me feel more comfortable when I get back on 

Amtrak to know that there are canines at Union Station. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Are you aware of domestic vendors that are actually working on training canines to meet TSA standards? Are you 

aware of any vendors that are actually working with the TSA to 

develop standards for their canine teams? 

Dr. OTTO. As far as developing standards, I am not aware. I do 

know that there are several vendors that are working with TSA, 

particularly on the Person-Borne Explosives Detection Dog. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. 

Can anyone share, what is the average cost of acquiring a canine 

and training it, whether single-purpose use or multipurpose? 

What’s the average cost? 

Mr. SMITH. I can tell you that we pay anywhere from $9,000 to 

$13,000 per dog, and that is before the man-hours are adjusted 

into, in the State of Florida, 480 hours for a full-service dog. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. —$9,000 to $13,000? 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. And that’s based on how much training it 

has in it already. Vendors sell some dogs that are considered to be 

titled, and they have more training once we get them. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Ms. Goffe, any? 

Ms. GOFFE. I would say that we’ve heard a wide range of numbers based also on the training. But that’s along the lines that 

we’ve heard. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, 

Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Otto, you want to talk a little bit about people working together. You made reference to, a little while ago, about the collaboration, the sense of it, essentially. Ten years ago, roughly—I’m also 

a member of the Armed Services Committee, in addition to Homeland Security—I wanted to try to get the canine community, breeding community, and training community, to agree on working together to develop a standard of physical capability but also training 

that the government could rely on for purchasing, whether it’s for 

the military or for Homeland Security. It was impossible to get 

these folks to work together and agree. Everybody felt their way 

of training was superior to everybody else. Do you sense that has 

dissipated in any way or changed? Because you talk about this center of excellence and this sense of cooperation. I worry that we’re 

going to see that devolve again. 

Dr. OTTO. I think it’s a risk. But I do think there is a change. 

I think that all of the organizations are realizing that they no 

longer can get the dogs that they want. And so they’re all feeling 

this pressure, and they realize they need to cooperate. And the fact 

that we had all of the representatives at the AKC meeting and we 

all agreed on kind of the general direction was really exciting. And 

I think you laid a lot of the groundwork by setting the seeds for 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

that. And I think the timing and the cost and the struggle that 

people are having is really forcing them to have to work together. 

Mr. ROGERS. I want to get to, I think, the point Mrs. Demings 

was getting at, on the price that folks like you are having to pay. 

And the government is paying higher than that in some situations 

for the top-notch canines. And I have Auburn in my district. And 

Auburn’s success rate on dogs that can make it as Vapor Wake, 

which, again, is standard, is about 60 to 70 percent of the dogs that 

they produce in their breeding program. 

It’s my belief if through organization and research that we can 

get that production and success rate to 80, 85 percent, then that 

business case is going to close so that they can sell that 80 or 85 

percent at the $15,000 or $20,000 level. And then the passenger 

screening dogs would come in at 10,000 or 12,000. And then the 

dogs that can’t do that, they could maybe be great for single-detection searches or cadaver searches or drug dogs or whatever, could 

be then sold for whatever the market would bear to get the waste 

out so the business model closes. That’s what I’m after in trying 

to get a breeding program stood up and supported by the Federal 

Government. 

Ms. Goffe, DHS has struggled with procurement and writing capability requirements for years. What do you think the DHS can 

do to make more clear what their expectations are when it comes 

to American canine companies and the product that they’re wanting to have processed through their screening programs? 

Ms. GOFFE. Well, first, I’d like to say that it’s a tough challenge. 

There’s a lot of subjectivity when it comes to training. 

Having said that, one of the things that we’ve had discussions 

with DHS and vendors is that we need to have specific sort of 

standards for the baseline of these types of dogs. So that’s to say 

that, when you bring one of these dogs in—we’re talking about untrained dogs or what they’ve defined as untrained dogs. Some of 

those dogs are going to go on to do additional training and to go 

to, essentially, higher levels like the Vapor Wake level. But if we 

can develop a single standard of what a dog who’s going to be a 

detection dog should be able to achieve, whether, you know, again, 

it’s environmental, mental, physical, all the various types of health, 

and then the standards for training spell out—— 

Mr. ROGERS. So are those requirements not written with enough 

specificity now? Is that your argument? 

Ms. GOFFE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. ROGERS. Are those requirements not written with enough 

specificity? 

Ms. GOFFE. The requirements are very vague right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about after action, when somebody goes 

through the training facility and their dog is not successful, or the 

screening facility, are you given clear feedback? Are you hearing 

that they’re giving clear feedback about what the shortcomings 

were? 

Ms. GOFFE. We have, unfortunately, heard they have not been 

getting clear feedback. We have heard a lot of frustration from people who have spent a lot of time providing what they thought the 

government wanted based on a scope of work and then have heard 

that, well, this scope of work can range from anything along a set 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

of guidelines to, well, it is subjective. So, if we can nail down a 

clear, concise, scope of work, what do these dogs need to do so that 

they can be better prepared, we think we’ll have a better response 

from breeders and vendors. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. My time has expired. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, I’d like to offer my final questions for Dr. Otto for the record. And, with that, I yield the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. PALMER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the gentleman Louisiana, 

Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ladies, sir, thank you for being here today. 

Lieutenant Smith, I was a police officer for 14 years, SWAT operator for 12, been on hundreds of missions with canine guys. And 

you’re a special breed, and no pun intended. So thank you for your 

service. 

And I’d like to ask you: You know, this is a Nation that’s $20 

trillion in debt. And, of course, we have to find the most efficient 

and wise expenditure of the people’s Treasury. That’s one of the 

reasons that some of us are pushing heavily for the increased use 

of canine teams because some of the alternatives of technology are 

very, very expensive. And we talk about the expense of a given dog 

right now being up to 25 grand for a canine; we’ll cover that in a 

second. 

But let me just ask, Lieutenant Smith, in your career, do you 

know of any known technology that can duplicate the performance 

and versatility of a good canine team? 

Mr. SMITH. Not even close. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you very much. 

So let’s talk about the expense of the dogs. When you have a 

broad-spectrum detection certification level for a dog, explosives, 

narcotics, cadaver detection, human sport tracking, each one of 

these certification levels, would that not add to the value of a dog 

if that dog is already certified in that detection technique? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, it would. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. So you can either buy the dog that’s already certified with these various broad-spectrum skills, or, if you 

intended for the dog to have that skill, you’d have to send that dog 

and his trainer to that school, would you not? 

Mr. SMITH. You would. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Which would increase the expense of the dog, if you 

make that comparison. I think that’s very reasonable, don’t you? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Okay. So the other expense of a canine dog, is it 

not the bloodline of the dog? Isn’t that considered—— 

Mr. SMITH. Is that for me? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Isn’t there sort of a culture amongst canine cops— 

and I wish my brother was still here—to have a dog with a deep 

bloodline? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Ms. Goffe, don’t you agree? Let me not put words in your mouth, 

ma’am. I would suggest that dogs bred and raised here in the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

United States, although the bloodline might not run as deep and 

appear as pure and pedigreed, they’d still be quite capable of performing as a canine dog. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. GOFFE. Absolutely. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

So if we can shift this culture of, LT, from amongst our brothers 

and sisters that are canine operators, from having a dog with a 

deep bloodline to an AKC registered and trained dog, wouldn’t you 

believe that would be an efficient expenditure of the people’s Treasury and a very effective choice? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, it would. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Okay. Let’s jump to officer retention and how that 

impacts. I will question you specifically, Lieutenant, is when you— 

what impact does canine reassignment to a new handler—if you 

lose an officer to another department or he transfers to another 

section within your own department and you have to reassign that 

canine, what generally happens with that dog? 

Mr. SMITH. So, if you’re keeping the same dog and the dog is 

fully trained, they still have to go through the same amount of 

training in Florida that I talked about, the 480 hours. They still 

have to do that 480. It’s a little more turnkey for the cop because 

the dog already knows what he’s doing, and it’s just a matter of 

time to get the officer up. But they still have to put those hours 

in. So that team is off the road and away from those assignments 

for that 480 hours. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So they can’t perform because they’re being repaired? 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. And has it been your experience, sir, that 

sometimes the dogs that cost you less money when you first got 

them end up to be better performers than the dogs that cost more 

money? 

Mr. SMITH. In some cases, yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yeah. 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this has been—thank you 

for holding this hearing. I think this is exactly the course of action 

we need to take on this subcommittee. And I, for one, am a loud 

and vocal advocate for the increased use of canines and their 

teams. 

And I thank the ladies and the gentleman for appearing before 

us today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize myself now for a few minutes of questions, as undefined as that might be. 

Lieutenant Smith, one of the reasons we’re holding this hearing 

is because of conversations that I had with Ranking Member 

Demings and Chairman Katko. And I want to recognize them. As 

law enforcement professionals, they have been invaluable in educating me about some of these issues. 

But the primary concern that I had that I brought up to both of 

them, and they shared this concern, is the lack of perimeter security at airports. I think all three of us fly every week. And I can’t 

speak for them, but I’m going in and out of airports where it is not 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

rare to see no security at the dropoff point and then to get inside 

the airport, in the ticketing area, and not see any security. 

Does that concern you? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, absolutely, especially from the history of certain 

terrorist events. 

Mr. PALMER. I would expect that answer. 

In talking with Ranking Member Demings about the jurisdictional issues between local law enforcement and TSA and trying to 

decide how this needs to be layered, whether it should be local law 

enforcement deploying the canines versus TSA, I think that’s yet 

to be resolved. But I do think the issue is, is that we need more 

quality dogs. We need a much more visible presence. You made a 

statement very early on that just the appearance of a dog or a canine unit is a deterrent. And I mentioned airports. I think the 

same thing is true of surface transportation hubs and major events. 

The primary focus of this is figuring out, how do we get more dogs 

approved, and particularly domestic dogs? But how do we get those 

deployed? What resources do we need to provide to make that happen so that we avoid another catastrophic event like we’ve just witnessed in Las Vegas? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think, for the end user, no matter how successful you are with the domestic breeding program, it’s going to 

come down to a budgetary concern for the local agency. You know, 

whoever is the authority over the international airport or the domestic airport or whatever, it’s going to come down to actually 

being able to pay for those dogs no matter what the price point is. 

So, whether there’s any assistance, you know, from the Federal 

Government or anything like that, that’s going to be the biggest 

concern because people who raise their hand and want to work 

with a dog, you don’t have a shortage of that. You’ll have the officers that want to come out and do that job. It’s a matter of actually 

being able to fund it at our level. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, one of the things that we were talking about 

earlier, and Congressman Rogers brought this up, and I think I 

brought it up in my questions earlier, is reducing the number of 

dogs that are rejected. And I think one of the ways you do that, 

Dr. Otto, is that you have very clear evaluation standards. And can 

you tell us how, for instance, TSA sets and evaluates standards for 

passenger screening and explosive detection? 

Dr. OTTO. I’m afraid I can’t tell you how they do that because 

I haven’t worked directly with them. We use the TSA screening 

process for our puppies to see if they’re able to enter in. But I have 

actually not worked with the TSA at the level of that training and 

evaluation. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, wouldn’t it make sense that if local law enforcement, for instance, they have jurisdiction over local airports, 

if they’re within their city limits or their area of jurisdiction, so 

there’s going to be overlap, wouldn’t it make sense that there be 

set standards across the board so that when you have local law enforcement or other law enforcement interacting with Federal agencies like TSA, you’ve got the dogs all trained to the same standard? 

And I realize the handlers will—you know, that changes some 

things somewhat. But wouldn’t that make sense, that everybody is 

training to the same standards? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Dr. OTTO. Yes, I believe. And I believe that DHS has been doing 

some testing. And I think one of the things about the standards, 

too, is, who is evaluating the dogs? It really does need to be an outside group evaluating the dogs as opposed to an internal assessment, and I think that might be where some of our challenge also 

comes. If we’re doing—if we’re sort of evaluating ourselves, we’re 

a little softer than maybe we should be. 

Mr. PALMER. Is there enough capacity to supply our domestic 

needs, whether it’s TSA or local law enforcement? Is there enough 

domestic capacity to provide those dogs? 

Dr. OTTO. Currently, I don’t think that there is. I think that 

that’s why we need to move on to a dedicated breeding program. 

And I think we need to realize that there’s a 2-year lag from the 

time we start breeding. So, if we want them tomorrow, we needed 

to be planning this 2 years ago. 

Mr. PALMER. And that goes back to the business model that I 

think we’re going to have to develop and the resources that Congressman Rogers mentioned. 

Unless there are other members with questions, I thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. I would like to just make this 

point: Again, this has been a very collaborative effort by both subcommittees. And even though Chairman Katko and Ranking Member Demings and I began talking about these issues months ago, 

the timeliness of this joint hearing is not lost on the members of 

these two subcommittees. The horror that we saw taking place in 

Las Vegas Sunday night loomed large over us as another reminder 

of the dangers that we all face and the responsibility that we share 

to ensure the safety and security of all Americans. And to echo 

what has already been said, we pray for the grieving families that 

have lost friends and loved ones, and pray for the full recovery of 

those who are injured. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittees stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(55) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 28507.023
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 28507.024
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 28507.025
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 28507.026
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 28507.027
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 28507.028
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 28507.029
63 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 28507.030