,,iv #aafth ,,congress #ast ,session ,h4 ,,con4 ,,res4 #dc ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of ,,representatives ,may #bb1 #bjai,mrs4 ,walorski submitted the following concurrent resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on ,armed ,services ,,concurrent ,,resolution ,recognizing the honorable service of military working dogs and soldier handlers in the tactical explosive detection dog program of the ,army and encouraging the ,army and other government agencies1 including law enforcement agencies1 with former tactical explosive detection dogs to prioritize adoption of the dogs to former tactical explosive detection dog handlers4 ,whereas the #cdast ,training ,squadron1 #cgth ,training ,wing at ,lackland ,air ,force ,base provides highly trained military working dogs to the ,department of ,defense and other government agencies2 ,whereas in #bjaj1 the operational needs of the ,army for military working dogs increased without an increase in resources to train a sufficient number of dogs for the detection of improvised explosive devices at the #cdast ,training ,squadron2 ,whereas the ,army initiated the tactical explosive detection dog program in ,august #bjaj as a nontraditional military working dog program to train and field improvised explosive device detection dogs for use in ,afghanistan as part of ,operation ,enduring ,freedom2 ,whereas the tactical explosive detection dog program was created to reduce casualties from improvised explosive devices in response to an increase in the use of asymmetric weapons by the enemy2 ,whereas the tactical explosive detection dogs were a unique subset of military working dogs because the ,army selected and trained soldiers from deploying units to serve as temporary handlers for only the duration of deployment to ,operation ,enduring ,freedom2 ,whereas the tactical explosive detection dogs and their soldier handlers1 like other military working dog and handler teams1 formed strong bonds while training for combat and performing extremely dangerous improvised explosive device detection missions in service to the ,united ,states2 ,whereas the tactical explosive detection dog program was a nontraditional military working dog program that terminated in ,february #bjad2 ,whereas at the termination of the tactical explosive detection dog program in ,february #bjad1 neither ,united ,states law nor ,department of ,defense policy established an adoption order priority1 and ,department of ,defense policy only provided that military working dogs be adopted by former handlers1 law enforcement agencies1 and other persons capable of humanely caring for the animals2 ,whereas an ,august #bjaf report to ,congress by the ,air ,force entitled ,tactical ,explosive ,detector ,dog 7,,tedd7 ,adoption ,report concluded that the ,army had a limited transition window for the disposition of tactical explosive detection dogs and the lack of a formal comprehensive plan contributed to the disorganized disposition process for the tactical explosive detection dogs2 ,whereas the ,august #bjaf report stated that1 in #bjad1 the ,army disposed of #bbi tactical explosive detection dogs2 ,whereas #dj tactical explosive detection dogs were adopted by handlers1 #dg dogs were adopted by private individuals1 #gj dogs were transferred to ,army units1 #ag dogs were transferred to other government agencies1 #df dogs were transferred to law enforcement agencies1 and #i dogs were deceased2 ,whereas the disposition of tactical explosive detection dogs was poorly executed1 proper procedures outlined in ,department of ,defense policy were ignored1 and1 as a result1 the former soldier handlers were not provided the opportunity to adopt their tactical explosive detection dogs2 ,whereas the ,army should have deliberately planned for the disposition of the tactical explosive detection dogs and provided appropriate time to review and consider adoption applications to mitigate handler and civilian adoption issues2 ,whereas section #cdb7;b7 of the ,national ,defense ,authorization ,act for ,fiscal ,year #bjaf 7,public ,law #aad-ib2 #abi ,stat4 #gic7 amended section #behc7;c7 of title #aj1 ,united ,states ,code1 to modify the list of persons authorized to adopt a military animal and prioritize the list with preference1 respectively1 to former handlers1 other persons capable of humanely caring for the animal1 and law enforcement agencies2 ,whereas since #bjjj1 ,congress has passed legislation that protects military working dogs1 promotes their welfare1 and recognizes the needs of their veteran handlers2 ,whereas ,congress continues to provide oversight of military working dogs to prevent a reoccurrence of the disposition issues that affected tactical explosive detection dogs2 ,whereas former soldier handlers should be reunited with their tactical explosive detection dogs2 ,whereas congressional recognition of the military service of tactical explosive detection dogs and their former soldier handlers is a small measure of gratitude this legislative body can convey2 ,whereas over #d years have passed since the termination of the tactical explosive detection dog program2 ,whereas ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones has been a long-time advocate for military working dogs and their handlers2 ,whereas ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones has worked to ensure that handlers are given priority when their military working dogs reach retirement2 ,whereas ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones was a strong proponent of the ,wounded ,warrior ,service ,dog program1 which is a valuable program that helps wounded members of the ,armed ,forces manage and recover from post-traumatic stress2 ,whereas the advocacy of ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones for military working dogs is well known throughout the nonprofit community that supports military working dogs2 ,whereas ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones worked with the ,department of ,defense and the ,senate to update the language in the ,air ,force ,manual on ,military ,working ,dogs to clarify that military working dogs are not equipment and to indicates the true level of appreciation and respect the ,department of ,defense has for these valuable members of the military team2 ,whereas ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones was the chief legislative sponsor of the ,military ,working ,dog ,teams ,monument1 which was built with no taxpayer dollars but through corporate and private donations2 and ,whereas with the support of ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones1 the ,national ,defense ,authorization ,act for ,fiscal ,year #bjjh 7,public ,law #aaj-aha7 authorized the ,burnam ,foundation to design1 fund1 build1 and maintain the ,military ,working ,dog ,teams ,national ,monument3 ,now1 therefore1 be it-- ,that ,congress-- 7#a7 recognizes the efforts of ,congressman ,walter ,b4 ,jones to promote military working dogs as unsung heroes on the battlefield and in helping wounded warriors recover from physical and mental injuries2 7#b7 recognizes the service of military working dogs and soldier handlers from the tactical explosive detection dog program2 7#c7 acknowledges that not all tactical explosive detection dogs were adopted by their former soldier handlers2 7#d7 encourages the ,army and other government agencies1 including law enforcement agencies1 with former tactical explosive detection dogs to prioritize adoption to former tactical explosive detection dog handlers2 and 7#e7 honors the sacrifices made by tactical explosive detection dogs and their soldier handlers in combat4