Rep. Paul Gosar listening, machines, official, security, through

toryburch475

Washington (CNN) -- What is the best way to quest passengers for explosives: Full-body Imaging machines, which can penetrate through your raiment? Or Rin Tin Tin, who can't, but might lick your hand?

That, unexpectedly, became the maximum contentious issue at a fiery congressional listening Wednesday on airport security.

In a periodically blistering, periodically comical debate, Republican lawmakers, a canine commander and a Transportation Security Administration official debated over the comparative values of dog vs. machine in assuring the national security.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, led the dog caucus, arguing that canines are cheaper and fewer invasive than body scanners. Dogs are exceptional at sensing explosives, do not require software upgrades, don't devalue with use and might even be skillful to detect bombards implanted beneath a person's peel.

"The unattached best course to ascertain a bomb-making appliance alternatively bomb-making matters is the canine," Chaffetz said.

And dogs are widely approved at the public, he said.

"Who doesn't like dogs?" chimed in Inspector William Parker, pate of Amtrak's K-9 unit.

Canines are lacking one entity that body scanners have, Chaffetz said. Lobbyists.

"That's what the problem is," Chaffetz said. "If you look at those lobbyists who moved through those machines, they ought be humiliated of themselves, for there is a better way to do this and it's with the canines."

Transportation Security Administration Assistant Administrator John Sammon noted the TSA has fielded both body scanners and canines. But dogs have limitations, he said. They necessitate frequent wrecks, he said, while the imaging machines can be worked tirelessly.

And he said, a dog can cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"How do you come up with hundreds of thousands of greenbacks. I mean Alpo merely costs so much," Chaffetz said. "I challenge you to verify that digit."

Sammon said the price of trainers and handlers is actual.

"I imagine that your whole-body imaging machines require one operator also," said dog fancier Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas. The machine at his local airport requires three, he said. "One to stop you going via, one to hear on the (walkie talkie), and the one in back (to reiterate the picture)."

Dogs and machines are both "expensive systems," Sammon allowed. "They each have their role."

But Chaffetz maintained dogs are extra efficient and intended a compete.

"Let's do this," Chaffetz challenged Sammon. "You take a thousand folk and put them in a apartment, I'll give you 10 whole-body imaging machines. You give me 5,000 in variant room. You give me one of his dogs and we will find that bomb ahead you find your bomb," he said.

"Let's see who can find more bombs, and let's see who is less expensive," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Arizona, asked Parker whether canines can detect gunpowder implants -- devices surgically implanted ashore a human.

"Scientifically, right now there's not file that says a dog can or cannot," Parker said. But he noted that dogs can detect illness and tumors. "Dogs can detect everything that they're taught. I muse if the dog is taught to do that, he'll be a quite agreeable funds for that."

TSA officials mustld Congress that body scanners tin no discover implanted devices, however they may detect revisions to body outlines.

Sammon agreed to see into the cost of dogs and report back to Congress.