114 S2870 IS: Military Retaliation Prevention Act
U.S. Senate
2016-04-28
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		II
		114th CONGRESS2d Session
		S. 2870
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			April 28, 2016
			Mrs. McCaskill (for herself and Mrs. Ernst) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

		A BILL
		To amend title 10, United States Code, to prevent retaliation in the military, and for other
			 purposes.

		1.Short title
 This Act may be cited as the Military Retaliation Prevention Act.
		2.Punitive article on retaliation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
 (a)Punitive articleSubchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 133 (article 133) the following new section (article):

					933a. Art. 133a.Retaliation
 (a)In generalAny person subject to this chapter who, with the intent to retaliate against any person for reporting or planning to report a criminal offense, or making or planning to make a protected communication, or with the intent to discourage any person from reporting a criminal offense or making a protected communication—
 (1)wrongfully takes or threatens to take an adverse personnel action against any person; or (2)wrongfully withholds or threatens to withhold a favorable personnel action with respect to any person;
 shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(b)DefinitionsIn this section: (1)The term protected communication means the following:
 (A)A lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General. (B)A communication to a covered individual or organization in which a member of the armed forces complains of, or discloses information that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence of, any of the following:
 (i)A violation of law or regulation, including a law or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination.
 (ii)Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
 (2)The term Inspector General has the meaning given that term in section 1034(h) of this title. (3)The term covered individual or organization means any recipient of a communication specified in clauses (i) through (v) of section 1034(b)(1)(B) of this title.
 (4)The term unlawful discrimination means discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.. (b)Clerical amendmentThe table of sections at the beginning of subchapter X of chapter 47 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 933 (article 133) the following new item:
				933a. Art. 133a. Retaliation..
			3.Report to complainants of resolution of investigations into retaliation
			(a)Report required
 (1)In generalUnder regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the results of an investigation by an office, element, or personnel of the Department of Defense or the Armed Forces of a complaint by a member of the Armed Forces of retaliation shall be reported to the member, including whether the complaint was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or dismissed.
 (2)Members of Coast GuardThe Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide in a similar manner for reports on the results of investigations by offices, elements, or personnel of the Department of Homeland Security or the Coast Guard of such complaints made by members of the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.
 (b)Retaliation definedIn this section, the term retaliation has the meaning given the term by the Secretary of Defense in the strategy required by section 539 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 818) or a subsequent meaning specified by the Secretary.
			4.Training for Department of Defense personnel on sexual assault trauma
			 in individuals claiming retaliation in connection with reports of sexual
			 assault in the Armed Forces
 (a)In generalThe Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the personnel of the Department of Defense specified in subsection (b) who investigate claims of retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces receive training on the nature and consequences of sexual assault trauma. The training shall include such elements as the Secretary shall specify for purposes of this section.
 (b)PersonnelThe personnel of the Department of Defense specified in this subsection are the following: (1)Personnel of military criminal investigation services.
 (2)Personnel of Inspectors General offices. (3)Personnel of any command of the Armed Forces who are assignable by the commander of such command to investigate claims of retaliation made by or against members of such command.
 (c)Retaliation definedIn this section, the term retaliation has the meaning given the term by the Secretary of Defense in the strategy required by section 539 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 818) or a subsequent meaning specified by the Secretary.
			5.Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault prevention and response efforts of the Armed Force of
			 information on complaints of retaliation in connection with reports of
			 sexual assault in the
 Armed ForcesSection 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 (12)Information on each claim of retaliation in connection with a report of sexual assault in the Armed Forces made by or against a member of such Armed Force as follows:
 (A)A narrative description of each complaint. (B)The nature of such complaint, including whether the complainant claims professional or social retaliation.
 (C)The gender of the complainant. (D)The gender of the individual claimed to have committed the retaliation.
 (E)The nature of the relationship between the complainant and the individual claimed to have committed the retaliation.
 (F)The nature of the relationship, if any, between the individual alleged to have committed the sexual assault concerned and the individual claimed to have committed the retaliation.
 (G)The official or office that received the complaint. (H)The organization that investigated or is investigating the complaint.
 (I)The current status of the investigation. (J)If the investigation is complete, a description of the results of the investigation, including whether the results of the investigation were provided to the complainant.
 (K)If the investigation determined that retaliation occurred, whether the retaliation was an offense under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice)..
		6.Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in
			 connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces
 (a)Metrics requiredThe Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office of the Department of Defense shall establish and issue to the military departments metrics to be used to evaluate the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.
 (b)Best practicesFor purposes of enhancing and achieving uniformity in the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office shall identify and issue to the military departments best practices to be used in the prevention of and response to retaliation in connection with such reports.


116 HR 5365 IH: License Transfer Modernization Act of 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-12-09
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 5365IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESDecember 9, 2019Mr. Flores (for himself, Mr. Long, and Mr. Steube) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and CommerceA BILLTo require the Federal Communications Commission to approve or deny a license transfer application
			 within 180 days of submission, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the License Transfer Modernization Act of 2019. 2.Time limits for Commission action on transfers and assignmentsTitle IV of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

				417.Time limits for Commission action on transfers and assignments
 (a)DefinitionIn this section, the term covered application means an application for the transfer of control or assignment of any license or authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
					(b)Requirements
 (1)In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 309(e), the Commission— (A)shall approve or deny a covered application; and
 (B)may not designate a covered application for hearing, unless the Commission first determines by a majority vote that a material factual question exists about misrepresentation or lack of candor by the applicant.
 (2)DeterminationExcept as provided in paragraph (3), the Commission shall make a determination to approve or deny a covered application during the period that begins on the date on which the applicants provide to the Commission the last submission relating to the application before the Commission issues the initial public notice seeking comment on the application and ends 180 days thereafter.
						(3)Extensions
							(A)In general
 (i)RequestDuring the 180-day review period described under paragraph (2)(A), the Commission may apply to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for an extension of that period for an additional 30 days by filing a motion to extend that references this section.
 (ii)Court determinationThe court may grant an extension of the 180-day review period requested under clause (i) if— (I)the court finds that the applicants for the transfer of control or assignment have not substantially complied in a timely manner with a reasonable request by the Commission for information;
 (II)the Commission shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Commission is unable to complete review within the 180-day review period; or
 (III)an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) has requested in writing that the Commission delay a determination pending the Executive agency's national security review of the transfer of control or assignment.
 (B)Additional extensionsThe Commission may request, and the court may grant, additional 30-day extensions in the same manner as an initial extension under subparagraph (A).
							(c)Approval absent Commission action
 (1)In generalA covered application shall be deemed approved without conditions if the Commission does not approve or deny the application or apply for an extension during the applicable period under subsection (b).
						(2)Pending litigation
 (A)In generalExcept as provided in subparagraph (B), if the 180-day review period under subsection (b)(2) has expired, the Commission may not deny a covered application or approve a covered application with conditions, during the pendency of any litigation relating to a request by the Commission for an extension under subsection (b)(3) with respect to the covered application, including any time during which a court has entered a stay pending appeal or administrative stay of such litigation.
 (B)Extension request denied after 180-day review periodIf a request for an extension under subsection (b)(3) is denied after the expiration of the 180-day review period under subsection (b)(2)—
 (i)the Commission shall make a determination to approve or deny the covered application not later than 10 days after the date on which the extension request is denied; and
 (ii)the covered application shall be deemed approved without conditions if the Commission does not approve or deny the application during the 10-day period described in clause (i).
 (d)Burden of persuasion shiftedNotwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 706 of title 5, United States Code, in a judicial appeal of a Commission decision to deny a covered application, the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the decision is—
 (1)permitted under applicable statutes and regulations; and (2)supported by the required amount of factual evidence..
 3.Technical and conforming amendmentSection 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 310(d)) is amended, in the second sentence, by inserting before the semicolon the following: , except as otherwise provided in section 417.
 4.Effective dateThe amendment made by section 1 shall apply with respect to any covered application that is submitted to the Federal Communications Commission on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		H. R. 5420
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			May 7, 2012
			Mr. Honda introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Ways and
			 Means

		A BILL
		To suspend temporarily the duty on dry nickel-metal
		  hydride batteries.

		1.Dry nickel-metal hydride
			 batteries
			(a)In
			 generalSubchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
			 Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the
			 following new heading:

								9902.01.00Dry nickel-metal hydride batteries (provided for in subheading
						8507.50.00)FreeNo changeNo changeOn or before 12/31/2015

					.
			(b)Effective
			 dateThe amendment made by subsection (a) applies to goods
			 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day
			 after the date of the enactment of this Act.


115 HR 4443 IH: Urban Indian Health Parity Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2017-11-16
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 4443IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESNovember 16, 2017Mr. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Cole, Mrs. Torres, Mr. Cárdenas, Ms. McCollum, Ms. DelBene, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Moore, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Matsui) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and CommerceA BILLTo extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to Urban Indian organizations.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Urban Indian Health Parity Act. 2.Extension of full Federal medical assistance percentage to urban Indian organizationsSection 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by striking Indian Health Care Improvement Act) and inserting Indian Health Care Improvement Act) or through an Urban Indian organization (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with the Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.


117 HR 4745 IH: Grace Hopper Code for Us Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2021-07-28
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I117th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 4745IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 28, 2021Mr. Cartwright (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Butterfield, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Khanna, and Mr. Soto) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and LaborA BILLTo establish a program to make grants to institutions of higher education to provide courses relating to critical legacy computer languages, and for other purposes.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Grace Hopper Code for Us Act.2.DefinitionsIn this Act:(1)Authorizing committeesThe term authorizing committees has the meaning given such term in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1003). (2)Information systemThe term information system has the meaning given the term in section 3502(8) of title 44, United States Code. (3)Institution of higher educationThe term institution of higher education has the meaning given the term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).(4)SecretaryThe term Secretary means the Secretary of Education.(5)StateThe term State has the meaning given the term in section 311 of title 5, United States Code.3.Report concerning critical legacy computer languages used by Federal Government(a)ReportNot later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the authorizing committees a report identifying not fewer than 3 computer languages, in addition to COBOL, Assembly, and PL/I, and to be known as critical legacy computer languages, that are—(1)used by, and necessary to support the needs and national security of, the Federal Government; and(2)computer languages not commonly taught in a course at an institution of higher education.(b)PublicationThe Comptroller General shall make the report publicly available, including by publishing the report on the internet website of the Government Accountability Office.4.Grace Hopper Sustainment and Modernization Grant Program(a)EstablishmentThere is established a program to award grants to institutions of higher education, to be known as the Grace Hopper Sustainment and Modernization Grant Program (in this section referred to as the Program), to support the development and implementation of courses of instruction regarding maintaining, developing, and modernizing information systems utilizing critical legacy computer languages identified in the report required under section 3.(b)Grants(1)In generalDuring fiscal year 2022 and each of the 3 succeeding fiscal years, the Secretary annually shall award grants to 5 institutions of higher education to carry out the activities described in subsection (a).(2)2-year institution of higher educationFor each fiscal year, at least 2 of the grants awarded under paragraph (1) shall be awarded to 2-year institutions of higher education that—(A)award an associate’s degree; or(B)offer university-based continuing education programs for information technology professionals.(c)PrioritiesWhen awarding grants under the Program, the Secretary will give priority to applications that—(1)demonstrate a plan to continue their efforts to carry out the activities described in subsection (a) after the end of the grant period;(2)demonstrate plans to recruit and include the participation of women and other under-represented minority groups;(3)demonstrate plans to engage with local students in grades 6 through 12 regarding career opportunities relating to critical legacy languages;(4)offer scholarship or other support, which may include books and supplies (including hardware, software, and connectivity), to students enrolled in projects supported by the Program;(5)incorporate perspectives into the challenges of modernizing legacy information technology systems from disciplines such as history, public policy, public administration, political science, business administration, management, economics, sociology, or other humanistic or social science disciplines;(6)address the extent to which the grant recipient intends to utilize and support open source technology and best practices in connection with the Program; and(7)demonstrate the ability to make agreements to place students in the projects funded by the grant in paid internships or similar arrangements with Federal, State, local, or private sector organizations where they can ensure that each such student works with computer programmers in maintaining, developing, or modernizing information systems utilizing critical legacy computer languages, with a preference for such placements lasting longer than 60 days.(d)Special rule related to geographyRecipients of a grant under the Program may not be located in the same State. (e)ApplicationTo be eligible to receive a grant under the Program, an institution of higher education shall submit to the Secretary an application in such form, and containing such information, as the Secretary may require.(f)Grant amountThe amount of a grant under this section may not exceed $5,000,000.(g)Period of a grantThe period of a grant under this section may not exceed 3 years.(h)Reports(1)Annual reports by institutions of higher educationEach institution of higher education that receives a grant under the Program shall annually submit to the Secretary a report on the activities pursued under the Program, including to the extent practical, the employment outcomes of students who complete the program (including earnings, job placement type, and employment rate). (2)Annual reports to CongressThe Secretary shall annually submit to the authorizing committees a report relating to the use of grants awarded under the Program. The Secretary shall make each such report publicly available, including by publishing each such report on the internet website of the Department of Education.(i)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this section.


116 HRES 1145 EH: Condemning the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and calling for a robust United States and international response.
U.S. House of Representatives
2020-11-18
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV
116th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1145
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 18, 2020

RESOLUTION
Condemning the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and calling for a robust United States and international response.

Whereas Alexei Navalny is a well-known anticorruption activist and leader of the political opposition in Russia; Whereas Mr. Navalny garnered 27 percent of the vote in the 2013 Moscow mayoral election;
Whereas since that election, Mr. Navalny and his party have been repeatedly denied the opportunity to compete in elections; Whereas Mr. Navalny has been imprisoned multiple times for participating in unsanctioned protests;
Whereas Mr. Navalny was attacked twice with a chemical substance in 2017 and potentially poisoned in 2019 while in prison; Whereas over the years a number of Russian journalists, human rights activists, politicians, whistleblowers, and others have been killed or died under mysterious circumstances, in Russia and overseas, including—
(1)former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko (in London) and investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006; (2)human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, journalist Anastasia Baburova, whistleblower lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, and human rights activist Natalya Estemirova in 2009; and
(3)opposition politician Boris Nemtsov in 2015; Whereas, on August 20, 2020, Mr. Navalny fell ill while on a domestic flight in Russia;
Whereas, on August 22, 2020, Mr. Navalny was evacuated by airlift from Omsk, Russia, to Berlin, Germany, for his protection and to ensure he would receive a high standard of health care to improve his chances of recovery; Whereas German chemical weapons experts conducted tests and found unequivocal evidence that Mr. Navalny had been poisoned with a Soviet-era military-grade chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group;
Whereas specialized laboratories in France and Sweden confirmed that Mr. Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent from the Novichok group; Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation has repeatedly denied that Mr. Navalny was poisoned;
Whereas the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has called on the Government of the Russian Federation to open an investigation into Mr. Navalny’s case; Whereas the Russian Federation is a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC);
Whereas, in November 2019, after Russian agents used a Novichok-class nerve agent in an attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom in March 2018, CWC parties agreed to add the Novichok group of nerve agents to Schedule 1, a list of chemicals classified as chemical warfare agents that are subject to declaration requirements and other restrictions; Whereas, on September 4, 2020, NATO strongly condemned the attack on Mr. Navalny and called on the Russian Federation to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on an impartial, international investigation;
Whereas the G7 foreign ministers issued a statement on September 8, 2020, that called on the Government of the Russian Federation to urgently and fully establish transparency on who is responsible for this abhorrent poisoning attack and, bearing in mind Russia’s commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to bring the perpetrators to justice; Whereas the Russian Federation is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
Whereas Article 6 of the ICCPR states that Every human being has the inherent right to life and No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life; Whereas Article 9 of the ICCPR states that Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.;
Whereas the Russian Federation is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); Whereas respect for human rights is key to the OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security and therefore the OSCE monitors the human rights situation in its 57 participating states;
Whereas pressure on Germany to reconsider its support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from the United States and international community, including many European Union countries, as well as from leading politicians within Germany, has grown since the attack on Mr. Navalny; Whereas Congress passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (title IV of Public Law 112–208) and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (subtitle F of title XII of Public Law 114–328) in 2016 to provide the United States Government with authorities to respond to grave violations of human rights and corruption in Russia; and
Whereas in response to the Novichok-class nerve agent attack described in this preamble against United Kingdom national and former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in 2018, the United States Government imposed two rounds of sanctions on Russia pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–182; 22 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.): Now, therefore, be it   That the House of Representatives—
(1)condemns the apparently purposeful poisoning on August 20, 2020, of Russian anticorruption activist and opposition leader Alexei Navalny; (2)expresses its appreciation for the prompt and generous efforts of the Cinema for Peace Foundation and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to ensure high-quality health care for Mr. Navalny after he was poisoned by facilitating his transfer by airlift from Russia to Germany;
(3)welcomes reports that Mr. Navalny has emerged from a medically induced coma and is gradually recovering from the poisoning; (4)hopes for Mr. Navalny’s full and complete recovery so that he may promptly resume his life and work;
(5)urges the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and multilateral human rights monitoring bodies to monitor the case of the August 2020 poisoning of Alexei Navalny as a probable violation of his fundamental human rights and to respond accordingly; (6)calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to cooperate with independent, impartial, and thorough investigations by competent authorities and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of the reported poisoning of Alexei Navalny;
(7)calls on the United States Government to support international or multilateral efforts to ensure an independent, impartial, and thorough investigations by competent authorities and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of the reported poisoning of Alexei Navalny; (8)urges the United States Government, in all its interactions with the Government of the Russian Federation, to raise the case of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and underscore the necessity of bringing the organizers and perpetrators to justice;
(9)calls on the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to use their authority under the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (title IV of Public Law 112–208) and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (subtitle F of title XII of Public Law 114–328) to designate individuals whom they determine upon investigation to have been involved in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny as perpetrators, organizers, or masterminds, on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury, freezing their assets and making them ineligible to receive United States visas; and (10)supports the 60-day review period triggered by the submission of a letter to the President by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate whether the poisoning of Alexei Navalny constitutes use of a chemical weapon by the Government of the Russian Federation in contravention of international law, and if so, to impose sanctions pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–182; 22 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).

Cheryl L. Johnson,Clerk.


116 HRES 247 IH: Recognizing the 50th anniversary of The Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University.
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-03-21
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. RES. 247IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 21, 2019Mr. Allen (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and Mr. Ferguson) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and LaborRESOLUTIONRecognizing the 50th anniversary of The Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University.

 Whereas The Dental College of Georgia (DCG) welcomed its first class of students in 1969 as a result of the efforts of many individuals, led by Dr. Judson C. Hickey, Dr. Louis Boucher, and Dr. Thomas Zwemer;
 Whereas the goal of the DCG is to prepare students to provide compassionate, innovative oral health care for the citizens of the State of Georgia and beyond by emphasizing education, patient care, research, and service;
 Whereas 50 years after the DCG welcomed its first class of students, the goal of the DCG remains the same;
 Whereas the State of Georgia, including the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, and many benefactors generously provided funding for a new state-of-the-art facility for the DCG, which opened in 2011;
 Whereas the DCG is the sole dental college in the State of Georgia, enrolling nearly 400 students and 60 residents annually;
 Whereas, as of March 2019, the DCG has 8 residency programs, including advanced education in general dentistry, endodontics, general practice, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and prosthodontics;
 Whereas the DCG also has a fellowship program in esthetic and implant dentistry; Whereas all of the programs of the DCG provide advanced education in specialized areas of dentistry; and
 Whereas since 2006 the DCG has been responsible for community outreach and has received funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration that has allowed senior dental students to provide oral health services at more than 25 different clinical sites in underserved areas of the State of Georgia, including in Albany, the greater Atlanta area, Augusta, Columbus, Dalton, Gainesville, Greensboro, Jonesboro, Rochelle, Savannah, and Waynesboro: Now, therefore, be it

 That the House of Representatives— (1)recognizes the 50th anniversary of The Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University and its distinguished alumni;
 (2)recognizes the contributions of The Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University to educating the dentists of the State of Georgia; and
 (3)directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make an appropriate copy of this resolution available for distribution to The Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University.