PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jan 9, 2018
Domestic Explosives Detection Canine Capacity Building Act of 2017
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a working group to determine ways to develop a decentralized domestic canine breeding network to produce high quality explosives detection canines and modernize canine training standards.
The working group shall be comprised of representatives from the TSA, the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), national domestic canine associations with expertise in breeding and pedigree, universities with expertise related to explosives detection canines and canine breeding, and domestic canine breeders and vendors.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The working group shall submit to the TSA preliminary behavioral standards, medical standards, and technical standards for the domestic canine breeding network and canine training, including recommendations on how the TSA can engage stakeholders to further the development of such network and training. The TSA shall submit a strategy for expanding the network based on such recommendations.
The TSA, in developing the strategy, must consult with other DHS officials to incorporate mission needs across DHS for an expanded domestic explosives detection canine breeding network that can be leveraged to help meet DHS's operational needs. The working group shall terminate two years after submitting the strategy.
(Sec. 4) The TSA shall issue baseline behavioral standards, medical standards, and technical standards for explosives detection canines. Such standards shall be incorporated into all statements of work for the TSA explosives detection canine contracts and reflect the detection capabilities required to effectively mitigate terrorist threats.
(Sec. 5) The requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the working group.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H32-33)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H32-33)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4577.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H32-34)
Mr. Rogers (AL) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 362.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-488.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-488.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4577 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4577 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4577 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4577 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.