prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: The minority leader of the modern House is the head of the "loyal opposition " As the minority party's nominee for Speaker at the start of a new Congress, the minority leader traditionally hands the gavel to the Speaker-elect, who is usually elected on a straight party-line vote  The speakership election illustrates the main problem that confronts the minority leader: the subordinate status of the minority party in an institution noted for majority rule  As David Bonior, D-MI, explained: "This body, unlike the other, operates under the principle that a determined majority should be allowed to work its will while protecting the rights of the minority to be heard " Minority party lawmakers are certain to be heard, but whether they will be heeded is sometimes another matter  Thus, the uppermost goal of any minority leader is to recapture majority control of the House  The minority leader is elected every two years by secret ballot of his or her party caucus or conference  These party leaders are typically experienced lawmakers when they win election to this position  The current minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, served 12 years in the House, including as majority leader, prior to assuming his current role (a position he also held during his time in the California state assembly)  Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, served in the House for 16 years when she first became minority leader in the 108 th Congress (2003-2004)  Following her first tenure as Speaker from 2007 to 2010, Pelosi was again elected minority leader in the 112 th Congress (2011-2012), at which point she was a 24-year veteran of the House  When her predecessor, John Boehner, R-OH, was elected minority leader in the 110 th Congress (2007-2008), he had served in the House for 18 years including as majority leader, committee chair (Education and the Workforce), and, prior to that, chair of the Republican Conference  Richard Gephardt, D-MO, began his tenure as minority leader in the 104 th Congress (1995-1996) as an 18-year House veteran and a former majority leader and chair of the Democratic Caucus  Gephardt's predecessor, Robert Michel, R-IL, became minority leader in 1981 after 24 years in the House  Much like his successors, John Rhodes, R-AZ, had served in the House for 20 years when he was elected minority leader in 1973  While the position itself is usually occupied by Members with significant House experience, the roles and responsibilities of the minority leader are not well-defined  To a large extent, the duties of the minority leader are based on tradition and custom  Representative Bertrand Snell, R-NY, minority leader from 1931 to 1938, described the position in the following way: He is spokesman for his party and enunciates its policies  He is required to be alert and vigilant in defense of the minority's rights  It is his function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority, and to this end employ parliamentary tactics and give close attention to all proposed legislation  Since Snell's description, other responsibilities have been added to the job  Broadly speaking, the role of the minority leader in the contemporary Congress is twofold: to serve as the leader and spokesperson for the minority party, and to participate in certain institutional prerogatives afforded to Members in the minority  How the minority leader handles these responsibilities is likely to depend on a variety of elements, including personality and contextual factors; the size and cohesion of the minority party; whether or not the party controls the White House; the general political climate both inside and outside the House; and expectations of the party's performance in upcoming elections  The next section of the report discusses the historical origin of this position, and the sections that follow take account of the various party and institutional responsibilities of the minority leader  To a large extent, the position of minority leader is a late-19 th -century innovation  Prior to this time congressional parties were often relatively disorganized, so it was not always evident who functioned as the opposition floor leader  Decades went by before anything like our modern two-party congressional system emerged on Capitol Hill with official titles for those who were selected as party leaders  However, from the beginning days of Congress, various House Members intermittently assumed the role of "opposition leader " Some scholars suggest that Representative James Madison of Virginia informally functioned as the first "minority leader" because in the First Congress he led the opposition to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies  During this early period, it was common for neither major party grouping (Federalists and Republicans) to have an official leader  In 1813, for instance, a scholar recounts that the Federalist minority of 36 Members needed a committee of 13 "to represent a party comprising a distinct minority" and "to coordinate the actions of men who were already partisans in the same cause " In 1828, a foreign observer of the House offered this perspective on the absence of formal party leadership on Capitol Hill: I found there were absolutely no persons holding the stations of what are called, in England, Leaders, on either side of the House     It is true, that certain members do take charge of administration questions, and certain others of opposition questions; but all this so obviously without concert among themselves, actual or tacit, that nothing can be conceived less systematic or more completely desultory, disjointed  Internal party disunity compounded the difficulty of identifying lawmakers who might have informally functioned as a minority leader  For instance, "seven of the fourteen speakership elections from 1834 through 1859 had at least twenty different candidates in the field  Thirty-six competed in 1839, ninety-seven in 1849, ninety-one in 1859, and 138 in 1855 " With so many candidates competing for the speakership, it is not at all clear that one of the defeated lawmakers then assumed the mantle of "minority leader " The Democratic minority from 1861 to 1875 was so completely disorganized that they did not "nominate a candidate for Speaker in two of these seven Congresses and nominated no man more than once in the other five  The defeated candidates were not automatically looked to for leadership " In the judgment of one congressional scholar, since 1883 "the candidate for Speaker nominated by the minority party has clearly been the Minority Leader " However, this assertion is subject to dispute  On December 3, 1883, the House elected Democrat John G  Carlisle of Kentucky as Speaker  Republicans nominated J  Warren Keifer of Ohio, who was Speaker the previous Congress  But Keifer was viewed by his colleagues as a discredited leader in part because as Speaker he arbitrarily handed out "choice jobs to close relatives     all at handsome salaries " Keifer received "the empty honor of the minority nomination  But with it came a sting—for while this naturally involves the floor leadership, he was deserted by his [party] associates and his career as a national figure terminated ingloriously " Representative Thomas Reed, R-ME, who later became Speaker, assumed the de facto role of minority floor leader in Keifer's stead  "[A]lthough Keifer was the minority's candidate for Speaker, Reed became its acknowledged leader, and ever after, so long as he served in the House, remained the most conspicuous member of his party " Although congressional historians disagree as to the exact time period when the minority leadership emerged officially as a party position, it seems safe to conclude that the position was established during the latter part of the 19 th century  This era was "marked by strong partisan attachments, resilient patronage-based party organizations, and     high levels of party voting in Congress " These conditions were conducive to the establishment of a more highly differentiated House leadership structure in which Members assumed more specialized roles within the institution  (See the Appendix for a list of House minority leaders selected since 1899 ) One other historical point merits brief mention  Until the 61 st Congress (1909-1910), "it was the custom to have the minority leader also serve as the ranking minority member on the two most powerful committees, Rules and Ways and Means " Today, the minority leader no longer serves on these committees but does chair the Republican Steering Committee, a party leadership committee responsible for making recommendations to the Conference regarding the committee assignments of House Republicans  The minority leader has a number of formal and informal party responsibilities  Formally, the rules of each party specify certain roles and responsibilities for their leader  For example, under Republican Conference rules for the 116 th Congress (2019-2020), the minority leader nominates party members to the Committees on Rules and House Administration, subject to Conference approval  Republican Conference rules also authorize the minority leader to appoint a "Leadership Member" to the Committee on the Budget who "will serve as the second highest-ranking Republican on the committee," and to "recommend to the House all Republican Members of such joint, select, and ad hoc committees as shall be created by the House, in accordance with law " Beyond their formal responsibilities, minority leaders are expected to handle a wide range of informal party assignments  Lewis Deschler, a former House Parliamentarian (1928-1974), summarized the diverse duties of a party's floor leader: A party's floor leader, in conjunction with other party leaders, plays an influential role in the formulation of party policy and programs  He is instrumental in guiding legislation favored by his party through the House, or in resisting those programs of the other party that are considered undesirable by his own party  He is instrumental in devising and implementing his party's strategy on the floor with respect to promoting or opposing legislation  He is kept constantly informed as to the status of legislative business and as to the sentiment of his party respecting particular legislation under consideration  Such information is derived in part from the floor leader's contacts with his party's members serving on House committees, and with the members of the party's whip organization  These and several other party roles merit further discussion because they influence significantly the minority leader's overarching objective: to retake majority control of the House  "I want to get [my] members elected and win more seats," said former Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-MO  "That's what [my party colleagues] want to do, and that's what they want me to do " Five activities illustrate how minority leaders seek to accomplish this primary goal  Minority leaders are typically energetic and aggressive campaigners for party incumbents and challengers  For example, they assist in recruiting qualified and competitive candidates; they establish "leadership PACs" to raise and distribute funds to House candidates of their party; they encourage party colleagues not to retire or run for other offices so as to limit the number of open seats the party would need to defend; they coordinate their campaign activities with congressional and national party campaign committees; they encourage outside groups to back their candidates; they travel around the country to speak on behalf of party candidates; and they encourage incumbent colleagues to make significant financial contributions to the party's campaign committee  In the weeks leading up to the 2018 congressional elections, for instance, Minority Leader Pelosi was actively campaigning for Democratic incumbents and challengers: With 21 days until the midterm elections, the California Democrat and House minority leader is crisscrossing the country fundraising and rallying the Democratic troops—and plotting her return to the speakership     In the third quarter [of 2018], Pelosi will report raising $34 2 million for Democrats, including $30 5 million for the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]  She is by far the biggest source of cash for House Democrats and House Democratic candidates  The minority leader, in consultation with other party colleagues, has a range of strategic options that can be employed to advance minority party objectives  The options selected depend on a wide range of circumstances, such as the visibility or significance of the issue and the relative degree of cohesion within the majority and minority parties  For instance, a majority party riven by internal dissension—as occurred during the early 1900s when "progressive" and "regular" Republicans were at loggerheads, or beginning in the late 1930s when a "conservative coalition" of Southern Democrats and like-minded Republicans emerged—may provide the minority leader with greater opportunities to achieve party priorities than if the majority party exhibited high degrees of party cohesion (and could simply outvote the minority)  Among the variable strategies available to the minority party, which can vary from bill to bill and be used in combination or at different stages of the lawmaking process, are the following: Cooperation   The minority party supports and cooperates with the majority party in building winning coalitions on the floor  Inconsequential Opposition   The minority party offers opposition, but it is of marginal significance, typically because the minority is so small  Withdrawal   The minority party chooses not to take a position on an issue, perhaps because of intraparty divisions or to spotlight divisions within the majority party  Innovation 
Report 2: , freestanding medical schools)  Specific educational programs are often accredited by a specialized accrediting agency, and the institution at which the program is offered is accredited by a regional or national accrediting organization  Generally, an institution must be accredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency that has the authority to cover all of the institution's programs  Alternatively, a public or private nonprofit IHE may be preaccredited by an agency recognized by ED to grant such preaccreditation, and a public postsecondary vocational institution may be accredited by a state agency that ED determines is a reliable authority  Proprietary institutions must be accredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency  The accreditation process begins with an institution or program requesting accreditation  Institutional accreditation is cyclical, with a cycle ranging from every few years up to 10 years  Initial accreditation does not guarantee subsequent renewal of the accredited status  Typically, an institution seeking accreditation will first perform a self-assessment to determine whether its operations and performance meet the basic standards required by the relevant accrediting agency  Next, an outside group of higher education peers (e g , faculty and administrators) and members of the public conduct an on-site visit at the institution during which the team determines whether the accrediting organization's standards are being met  Based on the results of the self-assessment and site visit, the accrediting organization determines whether accreditation will be awarded, renewed, denied, or provisionally awarded to an institution  Educational programs within institutions can be accredited by programmatic accrediting agencies; however, a program is not required to be accredited by a programmatic accrediting agency for Title IV purposes  Rather, it only needs to be covered by the IHE's primary accrediting agency  Frequently, programmatic accrediting agencies review a specific program within an IHE that is accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency  An institution that has had its accreditation revoked or terminated for cause cannot be recertified as an IHE eligible to participate in Title IV programs for 24 months following the loss of accreditation, unless the accrediting agency rescinds the loss  The same rules apply if an institution voluntarily withdraws its accreditation  The Secretary can, however, continue the eligibility of a religious institution whose loss of accreditation, whether voluntary or not, is related to its religious mission and not to the HEA accreditation standards  If an institution's accrediting agency loses its recognition from ED, it has up to 18 months to obtain accreditation from another ED-recognized agency  Although the federal government does not set specific standards for institutional or programmatic accreditation, generally, it does require that institutions be accredited or preaccredited by a recognized accrediting organization to be eligible for Title IV participation  ED's primary role in accreditation is to recognize an accrediting agency as a "reliable authority regarding the quality of education or training offered" at IHEs through the processes and conditions set forth in the HEA and federal regulations  For ED recognition, Section 496 of the HEA specifically requires that an accrediting agency be a state, regional, or national agency that demonstrates the ability to operate as an accrediting agency within the relevant state or region or nationally  Additionally, agencies must meet one of the following criteria: IHE membership with the agency must be voluntary, and one of the primary purposes of the agency must be accreditation of the IHEs  The agency must be a state agency approved by the Secretary as an accrediting agency on or before October 1, 1991  The agency must either conduct accreditation through a voluntary membership of individuals in a profession, or it must have as its primary purpose the accreditation of programs within institutions that have already been accredited by another ED-recognized agency  Agencies that meet the first or third criterion listed above must also be administratively and financially separate and independent of any related trade association or membership organization  For an agency that meets the third criterion and that was ED-recognized on or before October 1, 1991, the Secretary may waive the requirement that the agency be administratively and financially independent of any related organization, but only if the agency can show that the existing relationship with the related organization has not compromised its independence in the accreditation process  All types of accrediting agencies must show that they consistently apply and enforce standards that ensure that the education programs, training, or courses of study offered by an IHE are of sufficient quality to meet the stated objectives for which the programs, training, or courses are offered  The standards used by the accrediting agencies must assess student achievement in relation to the institution's mission; this may include course completion, job placement rates, and passage rates of state licensing exams  Agencies must also consider curricula, faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative capacity, student support services, and admissions practices  Accrediting agencies must also meet requirements that focus on the review of an institution's operating procedures, including reviewing an institution's policies and procedures for determining credit hours, the application of those policies and procedures to programs and coursework, and reviewing any newly established branch campuses  They must also perform regular on-site visits that focus on the quality of education and program effectiveness  The final component of the program integrity triad is eligibility and certification by ED  Here, ED is responsible for verifying an institution's legal authority to operate within a state and its accreditation status  ED also evaluates an institution's financial responsibility and administrative capability to administer Title IV student aid programs  An institution can be certified to participate in Title IV for up to six years before applying for recertification  ED determines an IHE's financial responsibility based on its ability to provide the services described in its official publications, to administer the Title IV programs in which it participates, and to meet all of its financial obligations  A public IHE is deemed financially responsible if its debts and liabilities are backed by the full faith and credit of the state or another government entity  A proprietary or private nonprofit IHE is financially responsible if it meets specific financial ratios (e g , equity ratio) established by ED, has sufficient cash reserves to make any required refunds (including the return of Title IV funds), is meeting all of its financial obligations, and is current on its debt payments  Even if an institution meets the above requirements, ED does not consider it financially responsible if the IHE does not meet third-party financial audit requirements or if the IHE violated past performance requirements, such as failing to satisfactorily resolve any compliance issues identified in program reviews or audits  Alternatively, if an institution does not meet the above standards of financial responsibility, ED may still consider it financially responsible or give it provisional certification, under which it may operate for a time, if it qualifies under an alternative standard  These alternative standards include submitting an irrevocable letter of credit to ED that is equal to at least 50% of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program funds that the IHE received during its most recently completed fiscal year, meeting specific monitoring requirements, or participating in the Title IV programs under provisional certification  Along with demonstrating financial responsibility, an institution must demonstrate its ability to properly administer the Title IV programs in which it participates and to provide the education it describes in public documents (e g , marketing brochures)  Administrative capability focuses on the processes, procedures, and personnel used in administering Title IV funds and indicators of student success  Administrative capability standards address numerous aspects of Title IV administration  For example, to administer Title IV programs an institution must use ED's electronic processes and develop a system to identify and resolve discrepancies in Title IV information received by various institutional offices  The IHE must also refer cases of Title IV student fraud or criminal misconduct to ED's Office of Inspector General for resolution, and it must provide all enrolled and prospective students financial aid counseling  Finally, the IHE must have an adequate internal system of checks and balances that includes dividing the functions of authorizing payments and disbursing funds between two separate offices  Institutions are required to have a capable staff member to administer Title IV programs and coordinate those programs with other aid received by students  This person must also have an adequate number of qualified staff to assist with aid administration  Before receiving Title IV funds, an IHE must certify that neither it nor its employees have been debarred or suspended by a federal agency; similar limitations apply to lenders, loan servicers, and third-party servicers  Relating to indicators of student success, an institution must have satisfactory academic progress (SAP) standards for students receiving Title IV funds  In general, IHEs must develop SAP standards that establish a minimum grade point average (or its equivalent) for students and a maximum time frame in which students must complete their educational programs  A student who fails to meet the SAP requirements becomes ineligible to receive Title IV funds  Also related to student success indicators, an institution that seeks to participate in Title IV programs for the first time may not have an undergraduate withdrawal rate for regular students that is greater than 33% during its most recently completed award year  An institution may be deemed administratively incapable if it has a high cohort default rate (CDR)  In general, the CDR is the number of an IHE's federal loan recipients who enter repayment in a given fiscal year (the cohort fiscal year) and who default within a certain period of time after entering repayment (cohort default period; CDP), divided by the total number of borrowers who entered repayment in the cohort fiscal year  Since 2014, ED has used a three-year CDP in calculating an institution's CDR  An IHE will be found administratively incapable if one of the following conditions is met: 1  an institution's CDR is greater than 40% in one year for loans made under the FFEL and Direct Loans programs; 2  an institution's CDR is 30% or greater for each of the three most recent fiscal years for loans made under the FFEL and Direct Loans programs; or 3  an institution's CDR is 15% or greater in any single year for loans made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program  When an IHE is determined to be administratively incapable due to a high CDR, it may become ineligible to participate in the Direct Loan, Pell Grant, and/or Perkins Loan programs (but not other Title IV programs)  ED may grant provisional certification for up to three years to an institution that would be deemed administratively capable except for its high cohort default rates  If an institution is seeking initial certification, ED can grant it up to one year of provisional certification  ED can also grant an institution provisional certification for up to three years if ED is determining the IHE's administrative capacity and financial responsibility for the first time, if the IHE has experienced a partial or total change in ownership, or if ED determines that the administrative or financial condition of the IHE may hinder its ability to meet its financial responsibilities  Additionally, if an accrediting agency loses its ED recognition, any institution that was accredited by that agency may continue to participate in Title IV programs for up to 18 months after ED's withdrawal of recognition  To ensure that an institution is conforming to eligibility requirements, ED can conduct program reviews  During a program review, ED evaluates an institution's compliance with Title IV requirements and identifies actions the IHE must take to correct any problem(s)  Review priority is given to those institutions with high cohort default rates; IHEs with significant fluctuations in Pell Grant awards or Direct Loan volume that are not accounted for by changes in programs offered; IHEs that are reported to have deficiencies or financial aid problems by their state or accrediting agency; IHEs with high annual dropout rates; and IHEs determined by ED to pose a significant risk of failing to comply with the administrative capability or financial responsibility requirements  If, during a review, ED determines that an institution is not administratively capable or financially responsible or is violating Title IV program rules, ED may grant it provisional certification, take corrective actions, or impose sanctions  ED has the authority to impose a variety of sanctions and corrective actions on an institution that violates Title IV program rules, a Program Participation Agreement (discussed later in this report) or any other agreement made under the laws or regulations, or if it substantially misrepresents the nature of its educational programs, financial charges, or graduates' employability  Sanctions include fines, limitations, suspensions, emergency actions, and terminations  ED can also sanction third-party servicers performing tasks related to the institution's Title IV programs  ED may impose several types of sanctions on institutions for statutory and regulatory violations, including fines, limitations, and suspensions  ED can fine an institution up to $55,907 for each statutory or regulatory violation it commits, depending on the size of the IHE and the seriousness of the violation  Under a limitation, ED imposes specific conditions or restrictions on an institution related to its administration of Title IV funds  A limitation lasts for at least 12 months, and if an institution fails to abide by the limitation, ED may initiate a termination proceeding  Finally, under a suspension, an institution is not allowed to participate in Title IV programs for up to 60 days  Each of these sanctions may require an institution to take corrective actions as well, which may include repaying illegally used funds or making payments to eligible students from the IHE's own funds  ED can take emergency action to withhold Title IV funds from an institution if it receives reliable information that an IHE is violating applicable laws or regulations, agreements, or limitations  ED must determine that the institution is misusing federal funds, that immediate action is necessary to stop misuses, and that the potential losses outweigh the importance of using established procedures for limitation, suspension, or termination  An emergency action suspends an institution's participation in Title IV programs and prohibits it from disbursing such funds  Typically, the emergency action may not last more than 30 days  The final action ED can take is the termination of an institution's participation in Title IV programs  Generally, an institution that has had its participation terminated cannot reapply to be reinstated for at least 18 months  To request reinstatement, an institution must submit a fully completed application to ED and demonstrate that it has corrected the violation(s) for which its participation was terminated  ED may then approve, approve subject to limitations, or deny the institution's request  Several other requirements affect institutional eligibility for Title IV programs  Some of these requirements include institution Program Participation Agreements, which include provisions related to incentive compensation and campus crime reporting requirements; return of Title IV funds; and distance education  The failure to meet the requirements for any of these may result in the loss of Title IV eligibility or other sanctions  HEA Section 487 specifies that each institution wanting to participate in Title IV student aid programs is required to have a current Program Participation Agreement (PPA)  A PPA is a document in which the institution agrees to comply with the laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the Title IV programs; it applies to an IHE's branch campuses and locations that meet Title IV requirements, as well as its main campus  It also lists all of the Title IV programs in which the IHE is eligible to participate, the date on which the PPA expires, and the date on which the IHE must reapply for participation  By signing a PPA, an institution agrees that it will act as a fiduciary responsible for properly administering Title IV funds, will not charge students a processing fee to determine a student's eligibility for such funds, and will establish and maintain administrative and fiscal procedures to ensure the proper administration of Title IV programs  The PPA reiterates many provisions required for institutional eligibility and ED certification discussed earlier in this report and contains several additional notable requirements that may affect an IHE's Title IV eligibility, which are described below  Along with the general participation requirements with which an institution must comply, a PPA may also contain institution-specific requirements  As part of their PPAs, domestic and foreign proprietary IHEs must agree to derive at least 10% of their revenue from non-Title IV funds (i e , no more than 90% of their revenue can come from Title IV funds)  This is known as the 90/10 rule  Examples of non-Title IV funds include private education loans and some military and veterans' benefits, such as benefits provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program  If an IHE violates the 90/10 rule in one year, it does not immediately lose its Title IV eligibility  Rather, it is placed on a provisional eligibility status for two years  If the IHE violates the 90/10 rule for two consecutive years, it loses its eligibility for at least two years  In a PPA, an IHE must agree it will not provide any commission or incentive compensation to individuals based directly or indirectly on their success in enrolling students or the enrolled students' obtaining financial aid; however, some exceptions apply to this general rule  For instance, IHEs can provide incentive compensation to individuals for the recruitment of foreign students who are ineligible to receive Title IV funds or they can provide incentive compensation through a profit-sharing plan  The ban on incentive compensation only applies to the activities of securing enrollment (recruitment) and securing financial aid  Other activities are not banned, and ED draws a distinction between activities that involve directly working with individual students and policy-level determinations that affect recruitment and financial aid awards  For instance, an individual who is responsible for contacting potential student applicants or assisting students in filling out an enrollment application cannot receive incentive compensation, but an individual who conducts marketing activities, such as the broad dissemination of informational brochures or the collection of contact information, can receive incentive compensation  HEA Section 485(f), referred to as the Clery Act, requires domestic Title IV participating IHEs (1) to report to ED campus crime statistics and (2) establish and disseminate campus safety and security policies  Both the campus crime statistics and campus safety and security policies must be compiled and disseminated to current and prospective students and employees in an IHE's annual security report (ASR)  Campus crime statistics required to be reported to ED and included in an ASR include data on the occurrence on campus of a range of offenses specified in statute, including murder, burglary, robbery, domestic violence, rape, and other forms of sexual violence  In addition to campus crime statistics, ASRs must include statements of campus safety and security policies regarding, for example, procedures and facilities for students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus and an IHE's response to such reports; security and access to campus facilities; campus law enforcement, including the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel, and the working relationship between campus security personnel and state and local law enforcement; programs designed to inform students and employees about the prevention of crimes; and the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs; enforcement of state underage drinking laws; enforcement of federal and state drug laws; and any drug or alcohol abuse education programs required under the HEA  An ASR must also include statements of policies specifically relating to incidence of domestic and sexual violence  For example, an ASR must include statements of policy regarding programs to prevent such incidents; procedures a victim should follow if such an incident as occurred; procedures an IHE will follow once such an incident has been reported and procedures for institutional disciplinary actions in cases of alleged incidents (including a statement of the standard of evidence that will be used in any school proceeding arising from the incident report); and possible sanctions and protective measures that an IHE may impose following a final determination in an institutional proceeding regarding such incidences  The Clery Act prohibits the Secretary of Education from requiring IHEs to adopt particular policies, procedures, or practices; and prohibits retaliation against anyone exercising his or her rights or responsibilities under the act  HEA Section 484B specifies that when a Title IV aid recipient withdraws from an IHE before the end of the payment or enrollment period for which funds were disbursed, Title IV funds must be returned to ED according to a statutorily prescribed schedule  In general, when a student withdraws from an IHE, an IHE first determines the portion of Title IV aid considered to be "earned" by the student while enrolled and the portion considered to be "unearned " Unearned aid must be returned to ED  Up to the 60% point of a payment or enrollment period, unearned funds must be returned on a pro rata schedule  After the 60% point of a payment or enrollment period, the total amount of funds awarded is considered to have been earned by the student and no funds are required to be returned  Whether an IHE and/or the student is required to return the funds to ED depends on a variety of circumstances, including whether Title IV funds have been applied directly to a student's institutional charges  Unearned funds must be returned to their respective programs in a specified order, with loans being returned first, followed by Pell Grants, and then other Title IV aid  In some instances, a student may have earned more aid than has been disbursed, and the difference is disbursed to the student after the student withdraws  Generally, distance education and correspondence education refers to educational instruction with a separation in time, place, or both between the student and instructor  It is a way in which institutions can increase student access to postsecondary education by offering alternatives to traditional on-campus instruction  Recently, due to the greater availability of new technologies, there has been substantial growth in the amount and types of courses institutions offer  Section 103(7)(A) and (B) of the HEA and the accompanying regulations define distance education as instruction that uses "(1) the internet; (2) one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices; [or]     (3) audio conferencing" to deliver instruction to students separated from the instructor  A course taught through a video cassette, DVD, or CD-ROM is considered a distance education course if one of the above-mentioned technologies is used to support student-instructor interaction  Regardless of the technology used, "regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor" must be ensured  Correspondence courses are expressly excluded from the definition of distance education  A correspondence course is one for which an institution provides instructional materials and exams for students who do not physically attend classes at the IHE, but does not include those courses that are delivered with "regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor" via one of the above-described technologies  In 1992, partially in response to cases of some correspondence institutions' fraudulent and abusive practices used to attract unqualified students to enroll in programs of poor or questionable quality, Congress incorporated provisions referred to as the "50% rules" into the HEA  The rules affected both the eligibility of institutions offering correspondence courses and their students' eligibility for Title IV aid  In general, under the rules, an institution is ineligible for Title IV aid if more than 50% of its courses are offered by correspondence, or if 50% or more of its students are enrolled in correspondence courses  As discussed earlier in this report, rules promulgated in 2016 would have required an IHE offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education in a state in which it is not physically located to meet any state authorization requirements within that state  Under the regulations, an IHE could meet this requirement if it participates in a state authorization reciprocity agreement  These regulations were scheduled to become effective July 1, 2018  However, on July 3, 2018 (and effective June 29, 2018), the Secretary of Education issued a final rule delaying the implementation of these requirements until July 1, 2020  The distinction between distance education and traditional instruction is also important for the purposes of Title IV program eligibility  Distance education programs provided by domestic IHEs are eligible for Title IV participation if they have been accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by ED to evaluate distance education programs  A program offered by a foreign IHE, in whole or in part, through distance education (including telecommunications) or correspondence is ineligible for Title IV participation 

ground_truth: Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy's ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy's policies and practices for naming ships. For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows: The first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN-826) has been named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia, but the Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be. Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states. Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the past 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress. Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy. The Navy has not yet announced a naming rule for its planned new class of FFG(X) frigates, the first of which the Navy wants to procure in FY2021. Previous classes of U.S. Navy frigates, like Navy destroyers, were generally named for naval leaders and heroes. Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities. Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles. San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001. John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers are being named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights. Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs) are being named for small U.S. cities. Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines. Navajo (TATS-6) class towing, salvage, and rescue ships are being named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes. Since 1974, at least 21 U.S. military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced. The most recent instance occurred on May 6, 2019, when the Navy announced that it was naming the destroyer DDG-51 for former Senator Sam Nunn. Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire. Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress  For most of the 19 th century, U S  law included language explicitly assigning the Secretary of the Navy the task of naming new Navy ships  The reference to the Secretary of the Navy disappeared from the U S  Code in 1925  The code today (10 U S C  §8662) is silent on the issue of who has the authority to name new Navy ships, but the Secretary of the Navy arguably retains implicit authority, given the location of Section 8662 in subtitle C of Title 10, which covers the Navy and Marine Corps  In discussing its name-selection process, the Naval History and Heritage Command—the Navy's in-house office of professional historians—cites the above-mentioned laws and states the following: As with many other things, the procedures and practices involved in Navy ship naming are as much, if not more, products of evolution and tradition than of legislation  As we have seen, the names for new ships are personally decided by the Secretary of the Navy  The Secretary can rely on many sources to help him reach his decisions  Each year, the Navy History and Heritage Command (NHHC) compiles primary and alternate ship name recommendations and forwards these to the Chief of Naval Operations by way of the chain of command  These recommendations are the result of research into the history of the Navy and by suggestions submitted by service members, Navy veterans, and the public  Ship name source records at NHHC reflect the wide variety of name sources that have been used in the past, particularly since World War I  Ship name recommendations are conditioned by such factors as the name categories for ship types now being built, as approved by the Secretary of the Navy; the distribution of geographic names of ships of the fleet; names borne by previous ships that distinguished themselves in service; names recommended by individuals and groups; and names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased members of the Navy and Marine Corps who have been honored for heroism in war or for extraordinary achievement in peace  In its final form, after consideration at the various levels of command, the Chief of Naval Operations signs the memorandum recommending names for the current year's building program and sends it to the Secretary of the Navy  The Secretary considers these nominations, along with others he receives, as well as his own thoughts in this matter  At appropriate times, he selects names for specific ships and announces them  While there is no set time for assigning a name, it is customarily done before the ship is christened  The ship's sponsor─the person who will christen the ship─is also selected and invited by the Secretary  In the case of ships named for individuals, an effort is made to identify the eldest living direct female descendant of that individual to perform the role of ship's sponsor  For ships with other name sources, it is customary to honor the wives of senior naval officers or public officials  A July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the Navy's policies and practices for naming ships (see next section) states the following: Once a type/class naming convention [i e , a general rule or guideline for how ships of a certain type or class are to be named] is established, Secretaries can rely on many sources to help in the final selection of a ship name  For example, sitting Secretaries can solicit ideas and recommendations from either the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) or the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), or both  They can also task the Naval Heritage and History Command to compile primary and alternate ship name recommendations that are the result of research into the history of the Navy's battle force or particular ship names  Secretaries also routinely receive formal suggestions for ship names from concerned citizens, active and retired service members, or members of Congress  Finally, Congress can enact provisions in Public Law that express the sense of the entire body about new ship naming conventions or specific ship names  Regardless of the origin of the recommendations, however, the final selection of a ship's name is the Secretary's to make, informed and guided by his own thoughts, counsel, and preferences  At the appropriate time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or appropriated by Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records his decision with a formal naming announcement  On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy's policies and practices for naming ships  The report was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act ( H R  1540 / P L  112-81 of December 31, 2011)  The executive summary of the Navy's report is reprinted here as Appendix A   Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time  Attack submarines, for example, were once named for fish, then later for cities, and most recently for states, while cruisers were once named for cities, then later for states, and most recently for battles  State names, to cite another example, were given to battleships, then later to nuclear-powered cruisers and ballistic missile submarines, and are now being given to attack submarines  The Naval History and Heritage Command states the following: "How will the Navy name its ships in the future? It seems safe to say that the evolutionary process of the past will continue; as the fleet itself changes, so will the names given to its ships  It seems equally safe, however, to say that future decisions in this area will continue to demonstrate regard for the rich history and valued traditions of the United States Navy " The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that "US Navy ship-naming policies, practices, and 'traditions' are not fixed; they evolve constantly over time " The report also states that "Just as [ship] type naming conventions change over time to accommodate technological change as well as choices made by Secretaries, they also change over time as every Secretary makes their own interpretation of the original naming convention " There have been numerous exceptions to the Navy's ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else  The July 2012 report to Congress cites exceptions to ship naming rules dating back to the earliest days of the republic, and states that "a Secretary's discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy's oldest ship-naming traditions " The report argues that exceptions made for the purpose of naming ships for Presidents or Members of Congress have occurred frequently enough that, rather than being exceptions, they constitute a "special cross-type naming convention" for Presidents and Members of Congress  This CRS report continues to note, as exceptions to basic class naming rules, instances where ships other than aircraft carriers have been named for Presidents or Members of Congress  Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships  Such observers might cite, for example, the three-ship Seawolf (SSN-21) class of attack submarines— Seawolf (SSN-21), Connecticut (SSN-22), and Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)—which were named for a fish, a state, and a President, respectively, reflecting no apparent class naming rule  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: "Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions " For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules (and exceptions thereto) are summarized below  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses current naming rules (and exceptions thereto) at length  On December 14, 2016, the Navy named the first of its 12 planned next-generation ballistic missile submarines Columbia (SSBN-826), in honor of the District of Columbia  The 12 planned boats are consequently now referred to as Columbia -class or SSBN-826 class boats  The Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be  Given the selection of Columbia as the name of the lead ship, possibilities for the naming rule include (but are not necessarily limited to) cities, capital cities, or states and federal districts and territories  It is also possible that the name Columbia will turn out to be an exception to the naming rule for the class  The current USS Columbia (SSN-771)—a Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine that was named for Columbia, SC; Columbia, IL; and Columbia, MO —entered service in 1995 and will reach the end of its 33-year expected service life in 2028, at about the time that construction of SSBN-826 is scheduled to be completed  If the service life of SSN-771 is extended for several years, it would remain in service after the commissioning of SSBN-826  This would create an issue to be resolved, since 10 U S C  §8662(a) states, "Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name " One possible step for resolving such an issue would be to change the name of SSBN-826 to something else, such as District of Columbia —a step that could be viewed as somewhat similar to the below-discussed instance in which the name of the Los Angles-class submarine SSN-705 was changed from Corpus Christi to City of Corpus Christi (see " Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions " below)  Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states  An exception occurred on January 8, 2009, when then-Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that SSN-785 would be named for former Senator John Warner  Another exception occurred on January 9, 2014, when then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that SSN-795, the second of the two Virginia-class boats procured in FY2015, would be named for Admiral Hyman G  Rickover, who served for many years as director of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy has announced names for all Virginia-class boats through SSN-801, the second of two Virginia-class boats procured in FY2018  A total of 30 Virginia-class boats have been procured through FY2019, of which 26 have been named for states  (Two were named for people and the two procured in FY2019 have not yet been named ) The Navy's shipbuilding plan calls for procuring three additional Virginia-class boats in FY2020 and two per year FY2021 and subsequent years  The 26 state-named Virginia-class boats procured through FY2018, together with the additional Virginia-class boats planned for procurement in FY2020 and subsequent years and the 17 existing state-named Ohio (SSBN-726) class SSBNs and cruise missile submarine (SSGNs), could make for a total of more than 50 boats starting around FY2022  Thus, starting around FY2022, the Navy might run out of state names for Virginia-class boats, and consequently might need to either amend the Virginia-class naming rule or begin making a series of exceptions to the rule  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that "while carrier names are still 'individually considered,' they are now generally named in honor of past US Presidents " Of the 14 most recently named aircraft carriers (those with hull numbers 67 through 80), 10 have been named for U S  Presidents and 2 for Members of Congress  The Navy is currently procuring Gerald R  Ford (CVN-78) class carriers  On January 16, 2007, the Navy announced that CVN-78, the lead ship in the CVN-78 class, would be named for President Gerald R  Ford  On May 29, 2011, the Navy announced that CVN-79, the second ship in the class, would be named for President John F  Kennedy  On December 1, 2012, the Navy announced that CVN-80, the third ship in the class, would be named Enterprise   The Navy made the announcement on the same day that it deactivated the 51-year-old aircraft carrier CVN-65, also named Enterprise   CVN-80 is the ninth Navy ship named Enterprise   CVN-80 was procured in the FY2018 budget, which Congress considered in 2017  If CVN-80, like most Navy ships, had been named at about the time of procurement, or later, rather than in 2012, it would have been named by the current Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress, which was produced when Ray Mabus was the Secretary of the Navy, states that Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus values the ability to consider [aircraft] carrier names on an individual, case‐by‐case basis, for two reasons  First, it will allow a future Secretary to name a future fleet aircraft carrier for someone or something other than a former President  Indeed, Secretary Mabus has a particular name in mind  With the scheduled decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US Navy history besides USS Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register  Secretary Mabus believes this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the Enterprise's storied name on a future carrier  Prior to the naming of CVN-80, the most recent carrier that was not named for a President or Member of Congress was the second of the 14 most recently named carriers, Nimitz (CVN-68), which was procured in FY1967  Destroyers traditionally have been named for famous U S  naval leaders and distinguished heroes  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses this tradition and states more specifically that destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy  Exceptions since 2012 (all of which involve Arleigh Burke [DDG-51] class destroyers) include the following: On May 7, 2012, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-116 for a living person, Thomas Hudner  On May 23, 2013, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-117 for a living person, Paul Ignatius, and that it was naming DDG-118 for the late Senator Daniel Inouye, who served in the U S  Army during World War II  On March 31 and April 5, 2016, it was reported that the Navy was naming DDG-120 for a living person, former Senator Carl Levin  On July 28, 2016, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-124 for a living person, Harvey C  Barnum Jr  On July 11, 2018, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the Navy was expanding the name of the destroyer John  S  McCain (DDG-56) to include a living person, Senator John S  McCain III (for additional discussion, see the next section below)  On May 6, 2019, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-133 for a living person, former Senator Sam Nunn, who had served in the Coast Guard from 1959 to 1960, and in the Coast Guard Reserve from 1960 until 1968 (for additional discussion, see the section following the next section)  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy had announced names for all DDG-51 class destroyers procured through DDG-131, the second of three DDG-51s procured in FY2019, and DDG-133, one of three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2020  On July 11, 2018, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the Navy was expanding the name of the destroyer John  S  McCain (DDG-56), originally named for Admiral John S  "Slew" McCain (1884-1945) and his son, Admiral John S  "Jack" McCain, Jr  (1911-1981), to also include Senator John S  McCain III, the grandson of Admiral John S  McCain and the son of Admiral John S  McCain, Jr  DDG-56 was procured in FY1989 and was commissioned into service on July 2, 1994  John S  McCain III served as a Member of the House of Representatives from 1983 to 1987, and as a Senator from 1987 to 2018  Among his committee chairmanships, he was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from January 3, 2015, until his death on August 25, 2018  He was the Republican Party candidate for President in 2008  On May 6, 2019, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-133 for former Senator Sam Nunn  Nunn served in the Coast Guard from 1959 to 1960, and in the Coast Guard Reserve from 1960 until 1968  He was a Senator from 1972 to 1997  During his time in the Senate, he was, among other things, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from January 1987 to January 1995  The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs)  The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy had not announced a naming rule for this planned new class of ships  Previous classes of U S  Navy frigates, like Navy destroyers, were generally named for naval leaders and heroes  Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) were at first named for U S  mid-tier cities, small towns, and other U S  communities  The naming rule was later adjusted to regionally important U S  cities and communities  An exception occurred on February 10, 2012, when the Navy announced that it was naming LCS-10 for former Representative Gabrielle Giffords  Another exception occurred on February 23, 2018, when President Trump, in a press conference with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, announced that an LCS would be named Canberra , in honor of HMAS Canberra (D33), an Australian cruiser named for the capital city of Australia that fought alongside U S  Navy forces World War II and was scuttled after being damaged by Japanese attack in the Battle of Savo Island on August 9, 1942  The Navy has identified the LCS to be named Canberra as LCS-30  A previous U S  Navy ship, the gun cruiser Canberra (CA-70), which served from 1943 to 1947 and again from 1956 to 1970, was similarly named in honor of HMAS Canberra   There is also a current HMAS Canberra (L02), an amphibious assault ship (i e , helicopter carrier) that entered service in 2014 and now serves as the flagship of the Australian navy  The situation of LCS-30 and L02 sharing the same name will presumably not violate 10 U S C  §8662(a)—which states that "not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name"—because 10 U S C  §8662 is a statute governing the naming of U S  Navy ships and L02 is not a U S  Navy ship  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy had posted or announced names for all LCSs up through LCS-30, plus LCS-32, LCS-34, LCS-36, and LCS-38  The Navy also announced on October 9, 2018, that one additional LCS would be named for Cleveland, OH, but the Navy did not specify which LCS would receive this name  A total of 35 LCSs have been procured through FY2019  In addition to LCSs 1-30, 32, 34, 36, and 38, the Navy has identified the 35 th LCS as LCS-31  As of May 6, 2019, this ship was listed by the Navy as having no name  The Navy does not want to procure any more LCSs beyond the 35 that have been procured  If no additional LCSs are procured beyond the 35 that have been procured, LCS-31 will be the last LCS to be named  Given the Navy's October 9, 2018, announcement that one additional LCS would be named for Cleveland, OH, it is possible the Navy will name LCS-31 for Cleveland  Amphibious assault ships (LHAs), which look like medium-sized aircraft carriers, are being named for important battles in which U S  Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U S  Navy ships that were not named for battles  The Navy announced on June 27, 2008, that the first LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship, LHA-6, would be named America , a name previously used for an aircraft carrier (CV-66) that served in the Navy from 1965 to 1996  The Navy announced on May 4, 2012, that LHA-7, the second ship in the class, LHA-7, would be named Tripoli , the location of famous Marine battles in the First Barbary War  The Navy reaffirmed this name selection with a more formal announcement on May 30, 2014  On November 9, 2016, the Navy announced that the third ship in the class, LHA-8, will be named Bougainville , the location of a famous World War II campaign in the Pacific  San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U S  cities and communities (with major being defined as being one of the top three population centers in a state), and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001  An exception occurred on April 23, 2010, when the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-26, the 10 th ship in the class, for the late Representative John P  Murtha  Another exception occurred on May 2, 2018, when the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-29, the 13 th ship in the class, for Navy Captain Richard M  McCool, Jr , who received the Medal of Honor for his actions in World War II and later served in the Korean and Vietnam wars  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy had not announced a name for LPD-30, which was funded in FY2018, and which is to be the first of a new version, or flight, of the LPD-17 class design called the LPD-17 Flight II design  On January 6, 2016, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Navy's new oilers will be named for "people who fought for civil rights and human rights," and that the first ship in the class, TAO-205, which was procured in FY2016, will be named for Representative John Lewis  The ships in this class consequently are now referred to as John Lewis (TAO-205) class ships  The Navy wants to procure a total of 20 John Lewis-class ships  On July 28, 2016, it was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth ships in the class (i e , TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl Warren, Robert F  Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth, respectively  All these names were later posted by the Navy for these ships  The Navy's 14 Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers  The Navy announced on October 9, 2009, that the 13 th ship in the class was being named for the civil rights activist Medgar Evers  The Navy announced on May 18, 2011, that the 14 th ship in the class would be named for civil rights activist Cesar Chavez  Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), which until May 2011 were being procured by the Army as well as by the Navy, were at first named for American traits and values  In December 2009, the naming rule for EPFs was changed to small U S  cities  At some point between December 2010 and October 2011, it was adjusted to small U S  cities and counties  As of May 6, 2019, the Navy had posted names for all EPFs through EPF-12, which was procured in FY2016  A 13 th EPF was funded by Congress in FY2018, and a 14 th was funded by Congress in FY2019  The Navy's two Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs 1 and 2) and its Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESB 3 and higher) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U S  Marines  Two of these ships have been named for living persons—ESD-2, which was named John Glenn , and ESB-4, which was named for Hershel "Woody" Williams  On November 4, 2017, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the third ESB (ESB-5), which was procured in FY2016, would be named for Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Lance Corporal Miguel Keith  This was Spencer's first announced naming of a Navy ship  A fourth ESB (ESB-6) was procured in FY2018, and a fifth (ESB-7) was procured in FY2019  Navy plans calls for procuring a total of six ESBs  On March 12, 2019, the Navy announced that that TATS-6, the first ship in a new class of towing, salvage, and rescue ships (TATSs), would be named Navajo, "in honor of the major contributions that the Navajo people have made to the armed forces," and that ships in this class will be named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes  It has been a long time since ships named for certain states were last in commissioned service with the Navy as combat assets  While there is no rule requiring the Navy, in selecting state names for ships, to choose states for which the most time has passed since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, advocates of naming a ship for a certain state may choose to point out, among other things, the length of time that has transpired since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset  In its announcement of April 13, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack submarines SSNs 786 through 790 for Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and South Dakota, respectively, the Department of Defense stated, "None of the five states has had a ship named for it for more than 49 years  The most recent to serve was the battleship Indiana, which was decommissioned in October 1963 " The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: "Before deciding on which names to select [for the five submarines], [then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus asked for a list of State names that had been absent the longest from the US Naval Register    " In its announcement of November 19, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack submarine SSN-791 for Delaware, the Department of Defense quoted then-Secretary Mabus as saying, "It has been too long since there has been a USS Delaware in the fleet    " A Navy News Service article about the Navy's September 18, 2014, announcement that the Virginia class attack submarine SSN-792 was being named for Vermont stated that "This is the first ship named for Vermont since 1920[,] when the second USS Vermont was decommissioned " A Navy News Service article about the Navy's October 10, 2014, announcement that the Virginia class attack submarine SSN-793 was being named for Oregon stated that the previous USS Oregon "was a battleship best known for its roles in the Spanish American War when it helped destroy Admiral Cervera's fleet and in the Philippine-American War; it performed blockade duty in Manila Bay and off Lingayen Gulf, served as a station ship, and aided in the capture of Vigan " A Navy News Service article about the Navy's January 19, 2016, announcement that the Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-801 was being named for Utah stated, "The future USS Utah will be the second naval vessel to bear the name; the first, a battleship designated BB-31, was commissioned in 1911 and had a long, honorable time in service     While conducting anti-gunnery exercises in Pearl Harbor, BB-31 was struck by a torpedo and capsized during the initial stages of the Japanese attack [on December 7, 1941]  She was struck from the Navy record Nov  13, 1944 and received a battle star for her service in World War I " The Navy's naming announcements for Virginia-class submarines have reduced the group of states for which several decades had passed since a ship named for the state had been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is currently under construction  This group used to include Illinois, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon, and Montana, but Virginia-class attack submarines have now been named for these states  (See the Virginia-class attack submarine naming announcements of April 13, 2012; November 19, 2012; September 18, 2014; October 10, 2014; and September 2, 2015, respectively ) As shown in Table 1 , the three states for which the most time now appears to have passed since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is currently under construction, are Kansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma  As of May 6, 2019, it has been more than 97 years since the decommissioning on December 16, 1921, of the battleship Kansas (BB-21), the most recent ship named for the state of Kansas that was in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset  As discussed earlier in the section on rules for naming SSNs, starting around FY2022, the Navy might run out of state names for Virginia-class boats, and consequently might need to either amend the Virginia-class naming rule or begin making a series of exceptions to the rule  The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons, meaning (throughout this CRS report) persons who were living at the time the name was announced  The Navy stated in February 2012 that The Navy named several ships for living people (ex  George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc ) in the early years of our Republic  The Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) believes that the last ship to be named by the Navy in honor of a living person prior to [the aircraft carrier] CARL VINSON (CVN-70) was the brig JEFFERSON (launched in April 1814)  Between 1814 and November 18, 1973, when President Nixon announced the naming of CARL VINSON, NHHC does not believe that any ships had been named for a living person by the Navy as NHHC does not have records that would indicate such  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress, noting a case from 1900 that was not included in the above passage, states that the practice of naming ships in honor of deserving Americans or naval leaders while they are still alive can be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War  At the time, with little established history or tradition, the young Continental Navy looked to honor those who were fighting so hard to earn America's freedom  Consequently, George Washington had no less than five ships named for him before his death; John Adams and James Madison, three apiece; John Hancock, two; and Benjamin Franklin, one  The practice of naming ships after living persons was relatively commonplace up through 1814, when a US Navy brig was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson  However, after the War of 1812, with the US Navy older and more established, and with the list of famous Americans and notable naval heroes growing ever longer, the practice of naming ships after living persons fell into disuse  Indeed, the only exception over the next 150 years came in 1900, when the Navy purchased its first submarine from its still living inventor, John Philip Holland, and Secretary of the Navy John D  Long named her USS Holland (SS 1) in his honor     [In the early 1970s], however, Department of the Navy leaders were considering the name for CVN 70  Secretary of the Navy John Warner knew the 93 rd Congress had introduced no less than three bills or amendments (none enacted) urging that CVN 70 be named for in honor of Carl Vinson, who served in the House for 50 years and was known as the "Father of the Two-Ocean Navy " Although Secretary Warner felt Congressman Vinson was more than worthy of a ship name, the former Congressman was still alive  Naming a ship for this giant of naval affairs would therefore violate a 160-year old tradition  After considering the pros and cons of doing so, Secretary Warner asked President Richard Nixon's approval to name CVN 70 for the 90-year old statesman  President Nixon readily agreed  Indeed, he personally announced the decision on January 18, 1974     In hindsight, rather than this decision being a rare exception, it signaled a return to the Continental Navy tradition of occasionally honoring famous living persons with a ship name  Since then, and before the appointment of current Secretary [now then-Secretary] of the Navy Ray Mabus, Secretaries of the Navy have occasionally chosen to follow this new, "old tradition," naming ships in honor of still living former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H W  Bush, and Gerald R  Ford; Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze; Navy Admirals Hyman G  Rickover, Arleigh Burke, and Wayne E  Meyer; Senators John C  Stennis and John Warner; and famous entertainer Bob Hope  Moreover, it is important to note that three of these well-known Americans—Gerald R  Ford, John C  Stennis, and Bob Hope—were so honored after Congress enacted provisions in Public Laws urging the Navy to do so  By its own actions, then, Congress has acknowledged the practice of occasionally naming ships for living persons, if not outright approved of it  In other words, while naming ships after living persons remains a relatively rare occurrence—about three per decade since 1970—it is now an accepted but sparingly used practice for Pragmatic Secretaries [of the Navy] of both parties  For them, occasionally honoring an especially deserving member of Congress, US naval leader, or famous American with a ship name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that their life's work is both recognized and honored by America's Navy-Marine Corps Team, and that their spirit will accompany and inspire the Team in battle, is sometimes exactly the right thing to do  As shown in Table 2 , since the naming of CVN-70 for Carl Vinson in 1974, at least 21 U S  military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced  Eight of the 21 were announced between January 2012 and March 2016, including three announced in 2012 and four announced in 2016  In four of the six most-recent instances, the ships were named for current or former Members of Congress  The most recent instance occurred on May 6, 2019, when the Navy announced that it was naming the destroyer DDG-51 for former Senator Sam Nunn  (For further discussion of that naming action, see the earlier section on names for destroyers ) A June 15, 2017, blog post states the following: Four [past U S  Navy] ships have been named for Confederate officers: the [ballistic missile submarine/attack submarine] USS Robert E  Lee (SSBN-601[/SSN-601]) [commissioned 1960; decommissioned 1983], the [ballistic missile submarine] USS Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1995], the [submarine tender] USS Hunley (AS-31) [commissioned 1962; decommissioned 1994], and the [submarine tender] USS Dixon (AS-37) [commissioned 1971; decommissioned 1995]  H  L  Hunley built the Confederate submarine that sank with him on board before it engaged in combat  A subsequent Confederate submarine was built and named for him  Commanded by George Dixon, the CSS Hunley carried out the world's first submarine attack when it struck the [sloop-of-war] USS Housatonic in February1864  Currently in the fleet is the [Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser] USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) [commissioned 1989], named for Lee's greatest victory over the U S  Army  Chancellorsville also was the battle in which Gen  Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was mortally wounded by friendly fire  The purpose of erecting monuments and naming U S  ships after Confederates—enemies of the United States—seems to be to recognize their perceived status as noble warriors rather than to remember the cause for which they waged war: the dissolution of the United States to preserve the "peculiar institution" of human slavery  This view of history is not shared by millions of Americans who see the monuments to Confederates as glorifying, even justifying the "lost cause" and the enslavement of humans  Other ships have been named for enemies [of the United States], probably because they were considered "noble warriors" too  [The ballistic missile submarine] USS Tecumseh (SSBN-628) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1993] and [the harbor tug] USS Osceola (YTB-129) [commissioned 1938; sold for scrapping 1973] were named after American Indian leaders who fought wars against the United States  Regarding the Chancellorsville , the Navy states that the cruiser is The first U S  Navy ship named for a Civil War battle fought just south of the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers in Virginia (1–5 May 1863)  Gen  Robert E  Lee, CSA, who led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, held Gen  Joseph Hooker, USA, who commanded the Union Army and Department of the Potomac, in position while Lt  Gen  Thomas J  Jackson, CSA, enveloped the Union right flank, surprising and rolling up the Federal's right  Lee's victory, combined with the urgent need to relieve pressure on Vicksburg, Miss , prompted the South's thrust into Pennsylvania that summer, resulting in the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg  An August 16, 2017, press report states the following: As America churns through a bloody debate over the place Confederate monuments occupy in the modern day United States, a Navy cruiser named in honor of a Confederate Civil War victory is unlikely to see its named changed, a service official said Wednesday [August 16]  The guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville [CG-62] was commissioned in 1989 and derives its name from an 1863 battle considered to be the greatest victory of Confederate Gen  Robert E  Lee     But a Navy official speaking on the condition of anonymity Wednesday said that even though the Chancellorsville is named after a Confederate victory, the name comes from a battle, not an individual, and soldiers on both sides died  The week-long battle resulted in major casualties for both sides—13,000 Confederates and 17,000 Union troops, according to the National Parks [sic: Park] Service  The Navy official did say, however, that there remains a chance the ship's crest could be altered  The predominance of gray in the ship's crest speaks to "General Robert E  Lee's spectacular military strategies and his dominance in this battle," according to the ship's website  An inverted wreath also memorializes the Confederacy's second-best known general, Stonewall Jackson, who was mortally wounded in the battle  While the rupture of the country during the Civil War is reflected in the crest, it also features Jackson's order to "press on " "Maybe that is worth re-looking at or redoing," the official said  "There's a fine line " In recent years, the Navy on a few occasions has announced names for ships years before those ships were procured  Although announcing a name for a ship years before it is procured is not prohibited, doing so could deprive a future Secretary of the Navy (or, more broadly, a future Administration) of the opportunity to select a name for the ship  It could also deprive Congress of an opportunity to express its sense regarding potential names for a ship, and create a risk of assigning a name to a ship that eventually is not procured for some reason, a situation that could be viewed as potentially embarrassing to the Navy  As noted earlier, the July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: At the appropriate time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or appropriated by Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records his decision with a formal naming announcement  At the end of the above passage, there is a footnote (number 3) in the Navy report that states the following: Although there is no hard and fast rule, Secretaries most often name a ship after Congress has appropriated funds for its construction or approved its future construction in some way—such as authorization of either block buys or multi-year procurements of a specific number of ships  There are special cases, however, when Secretaries use their discretion to name ships before formal Congressional approval, such as when Secretary John Lehman announced the namesake for a new class of Aegis guided missile destroyers would be Admiral Arleigh Burke, several years before the ship was either authorized or appropriated  In connection with the quoted footnote passage immediately above, it can be noted that the lead ship of the DDG-51 class of destroyers was named for Arleigh Burke on November 5, 1982, about two years before the ship was authorized and fully funded  Recent examples of Navy ships whose names were announced more than two years before they were procured include the following: The destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000)  On July 4, 2000, President Bill Clinton announced that DDG-1000, the lead ship in a new class of destroyers, would be named Zumwalt in honor of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr , the Chief of Naval Operations from 1970 to 1974, who had died on January 2, 2000  At the time of the naming announcement, Congress was considering the Navy's proposed FY2001 budget, under which DDG-1000 was scheduled for authorization in FY2005, a budget that Congress would consider in 2004, which was then about four years in the future  The aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-80)  As noted earlier, on December 1, 2012, the Navy announced that CVN-80, the third Gerald R  Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier, would be named Enterprise   At the time of the announcement, CVN-80 was scheduled for procurement in FY2018, the budget for which Congress was to consider in 2017, which was then more than four years in the future  (CVN-80 was in fact procured in FY2018 ) The ballistic missile submarine ( SSBN-826 ) Columbia   As noted earlier, on July 28, 2016, it was reported that the first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN-826) will be named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia  This ship is scheduled for procurement in FY2021, the budget for which Congress is to consider in 2020, which in July 2016 was about four years in the future  Three John Lewis (TAO- 205) class oilers  As noted earlier, on July 28, 2016, it was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers (i e , TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl Warren, Robert F  Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth, respectively  In 2016, these five ships were scheduled for procurement in FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, respectively, the budgets for which Congress has considered or will consider in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively  Thus, using the procurement dates that were scheduled in 2016, the name for TAO-208 ( Robert F  Kennedy ) was announced about three years before it was to be procured, the name for TAO-209 ( Lucy Stone ) was announced about four years it was to be procured, and the name for TAO-210 ( Sojourner Truth ) was announced about five years before it was to be procured  As discussed in the CRS report on the TAO-205 class program, the first six ships in the TAO-205 class are being procured under a block buy contract that Congress authorized as part of its action on the FY2016 defense budget  The procurement of each ship under this contract remains subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose  Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states or cities, for earlier U S  Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire  Citizens with such an interest sometimes contact the Navy, the Department of Defense, or Congress seeking support for their proposals  An October 2008 news report, for example, suggested that a letter-writing campaign by New Hampshire elementary school students that began in January 2004 was instrumental in the Navy's decision in August 2004 to name a Virginia-class submarine after the state  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: In addition to receiving input and recommendations from the President and Congress, every Secretary of the Navy receives numerous requests from service members, citizens, interest groups, or individual members of Congress who want to name a ship in honor of a particular hometown, or State, or place, or hero, or famous ship  This means the "nomination" process is often fiercely contested as differing groups make the case that "their" ship name is the most fitting choice for a Secretary to make  Members of the public may also express their opposition to an announced naming decision  The July 2012 Navy report to Congress cites and discusses five recent examples of ship-naming decisions that were criticized by some observers: the destroyer DDG-1002 (named for President Lyndon Johnson), the Littoral Combat Ship LCS-10 (named for former Representative Gabrielle Giffords), the amphibious ship LPD-26 (named for late Representative John P  Murtha), the auxiliary ship TAKE-13 (named for Medgar Evers), and the auxiliary ship TAKE-14 (named for Cesar Chavez)  Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced or may have influenced pending Navy decisions on the naming of certain ships, including but not limited to the following: One source states that "[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H G  Rickover ([instead,] the [attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral) " There was a friendly rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for President Truman and those who supported naming it for President Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier (CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan  One press report suggests that the decision to name CVN-77 for President George H  W  Bush may have been influenced by a congressional suggestion  Section 1012 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act ( H R  5122 / P L  109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of the Congress that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald R  Ford  The Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be named Gerald R  Ford   In the 111 th Congress, H Res  1505 , introduced on July 1, 2010, expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of John William Finn  The measure was not acted on after being referred to the House Armed Services Committee  On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named John Finn   Section 1012 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act ( H R  1540 / P L  112-81 of December 31, 2011) expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy is encouraged to name the next available naval vessel after Rafael Peralta  On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named Rafael Peralta   The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that every Secretary of the Navy, regardless of point of view [on how to name ships], is subject to a variety of outside influences when considering the best names to choose  The first among these comes from the President of the United States, under whose direction any Secretary works    Secretaries of the Navy must also consider the input of Congress     Given the vital role Congress plays in maintaining the Navy-Marine Corps Team, any Secretary is sure to respect and consider its input when considering ships names  Sometimes, the Secretary must also balance or contend with differences of opinion between the President and Congress  The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known  Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names (see below)  Congress can pass legislation regarding a ship-naming decision that has been announced by the Navy  Such legislation can express Congress's views regarding the Navy's announced decision, and if Congress so desires, can also suggest or direct the Navy to take some action  The following are three examples of such legislation: S Res  332 of the 115 th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to reflect support for an announced Navy ship-naming decision  This measure, introduced in the Senate on November 15, 2017, and considered and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent the same day, summarizes the military career of Hershel "Woody" Williams and commemorates the christening of ESB-4, an expeditionary sea base ship named for Williams (see " Legislative Activity in 115th and 116th Congress  ") H Res  1022 of the 111 th Congress is an example of a measure reflecting support for an announced Navy ship-naming decision  This measure, introduced on January 20, 2010, and passed by the House on February 4, 2010, congratulates the Navy on its decision to name a naval ship for Medgar Evers  H Con Res  312 of the 97 th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to reflect disagreement with an announced Navy ship-naming decision  This measure expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named Corpus Christi   (Los Angeles-class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for Corpus Christi, TX ) H Con Res  312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was referred to the Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on April 28, 1982  On May 10, 1982, the Navy modified the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi   On April 12, 2013, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that LPD-27, a San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship, would be named for Portland, OR  LPD-27 is to be the third Navy ship to bear the name Portland  The first, a cruiser (CA-33), was named for Portland, ME  It was commissioned into service in February 1933, decommissioned in July 1946, and maintained in reserve status until struck from the Navy list in March 1959  The second, an amphibious ship (LSD-37), was named for both Portland, ME, and Portland, OR  It was commissioned into service in October 1970, decommissioned in October 2003, and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in March 2004  An April 18, 2013, press release from Senator Angus King stated that "U S  Senators Susan Collins and Angus King today sent a letter to Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, asking that the USS Portland [LPD-27], a new San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship named after the city of Portland, Oregon, also be named in honor of Portland, Maine, consistent with the long history and tradition of U S  Navy ships bestowed with the name USS Portland " In reply, the Navy sent letters dated April 24, 2013, to Senators Collins and King that stated the following in part: In addition to [the ballistic missile submarine] USS MAINE (SSBN 743), Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus recently honored the state of Marine through his naming of [the expeditionary fast transport ship] USNS MILLINOCKET (JHSV 3) [now called T-EPF 3] which was christened last weekend and will proudly represent our Nation as part of the fleet for decades to come  The Secretary of the Navy has tremendous appreciation for the state of Maine, its citizens and the incredible support provided by them to our Navy and our Nation  However, Oregon is the only state in our Nation that does not currently have a ship in the fleet named for the state, its cities or communities  Secretary Mabus named LPD 27 after Portland, Oregon, to correct that oversight and acknowledge the support and contributions made by the men and women of Portland and Oregon  As noted elsewhere in this report, on October 10, 2014, the Navy announced that it was naming the Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-793 for Oregon  A May 21, 2016, Navy blog post about the ship's christening states that "LPD-27 will be the third Navy ship named Portland, honoring both the Oregon seaport and Maine's largest city " That statement is not correct, as the Navy confirms that LPD-27 is named solely for Portland, OR  A July 5, 2017, Navy News Service report states correctly that "LPD 27 is named for the city of Portland, Oregon, and follows the World War II heavy cruiser CA 33 and the amphibious ship LSD 37 as the third U S  Navy ship to bear the name Portland " LPD-27 is scheduled to be commissioned in Portland, OR, on April 21, 2018  Table 3 shows past enacted provisions going back to the 100 th Congress regarding future ship-naming decisions  All of these measures expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or House) about how a future Navy ship should be named  Table 4 shows past examples of proposed bills and amendments regarding future ship-naming decisions going back to the 93 rd Congress  Some of these measures expressed the sense of the Congress about how a Navy ship should be named, while others would mandate a certain name for a ship  Although few of these measures were acted on after being referred to committee, they all signaled congressional interest in how certain ships should be named, and thus may have influenced Navy decisions on these matters  S Con Res  10 of the 115 th Congress was introduced in the Senate on March 21, 2017; no further actions for the measure are listed at Congress gov  The text of S Con Res  10 as introduced was as follows: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name the next nuclear powered submarine of the United States Navy the "USS Los Alamos"  Whereas the people of Los Alamos and the Navy have a 74-year relationship that continues from the Manhattan Project through the creation of a nuclear Navy and into the current ocean-borne leg of the strategic nuclear triad of the United States; Whereas the contributions of the people of Los Alamos and surrounding communities allowed the Navy to keep its offensive edge from World War II, through the Cold War, continuing to the emerging conflicts as of the date of adoption of this resolution; Whereas Captain "Deke" Parsons was one of the first residents of Los Alamos and, along with Laureate Ramsey, oversaw the safe delivery, assembly and loading of the nuclear bomb that led to the surrender of Japan in World War II; Whereas the people of Los Alamos and surrounding communities played a critical role in designing the nuclear portion of the first nuclear weapon to enter the arsenal of the Navy, known as the Regulus, along with atomic depth bombs, torpedoes, rockets, and even next generation weapon systems like the B61–12 precision-guided nuclear bomb; Whereas the people of Los Alamos designed the warheads that armed the first generation Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the Navy and the follow-on Trident II missile warheads used by the Navy; Whereas the research into nuclear energy conducted by Los Alamos during World War II advanced the technical basis for the development of the nuclear propulsion systems of the Navy used aboard Los Angeles, Seawolf, Ohio, and Virginia Class submarines along with multiple naval aircraft carriers today; Whereas the people of Los Alamos and Los Alamos National Laboratory host United States Naval Academy midshipmen every year to provide hands-on scientific and engineering experience working to solve real world challenges in national security, thereby directly contributing to the development of future Navy leadership; Whereas the people of Los Alamos carry the solemn responsibility to assess the sea-based nuclear deterrent carried aboard Navy fleet ballistic missile submarines; Whereas naming a submarine Los Alamos will recognize and continue to forge the longstanding relationship between the Navy and Los Alamos; Whereas the year 2018 will mark the 75th anniversary of Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Whereas the distinctive service and contributions from the people of Los Alamos to the Navy merits naming a vessel that embodies the heritage, service, fidelity, and achievements of the residents of Los Alamos and surrounding communities in partnership with the United States Navy: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name the next nuclear powered submarine of the United States Navy as the "USS Los Alamos"  Appendix A  Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy Report to Congress This appendix reprints the executive summary of the July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the Navy's policies and practices for naming its ships  The text of the executive summary is as follows: Executive Summary This report is submitted in accordance with Section 1014 of P L  112-81 , National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, dated 31 December 2011, which directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on "policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy " As required by the NDAA, this report: Includes a description of the current policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy, and a description of the extent to which theses policies and practices vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy, and an explanation for such variances; Assesses the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the naming of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such fixed policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and advisable; and Identifies any other matter relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate  After examining the historical record in great detail, this report concludes: Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions  The establishment of fixed policies for the naming of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy would be highly inadvisable  There is no objective evidence to suggest that fixed policies would improve Navy ship naming policies and practices, which have worked well for over two centuries  In addition, the Department of the Navy used to routinely publish lists of current type naming rules for battle force ships, and update it as changes were made to them  At some point, this practice fell into disuse, leading to a general lack of knowledge about naming rules  To remedy this problem, the Naval History and Heritage Command will once again develop and publish a list of current type naming rules to help all Americans better understand why Secretaries of the Navy choose the ship names they do  This list will be updated as required 


Report 2:  The minority party develops alternatives and agendas of its own and attempts to construct winning coalitions on their behalf  Partisan Opposition   The minority party offers strong opposition to majority party initiatives, but does not counter with policy alternatives of their own  Participation   The minority party is in the position of having to consider the views and proposals of a same-party President and to assess their majority-building role with respect to the President's priorities  A look at one minority leadership strategy—partisan opposition—may suggest why it might be employed in specific circumstances  The purposes of obstruction are several, such as frustrating the majority party's ability to govern or attracting media attention to the alleged ineffectiveness of the majority party  "We know how to delay," remarked Minority Leader Gephardt  Dilatory motions to adjourn, appeals of the presiding officer's ruling, or numerous requests for roll call votes, including on noncontroversial items like approving the House Jou rnal , are standard time-consuming parliamentary tactics  By stalling action on the majority party's agenda, the minority leader may be able to launch a campaign against a "do-nothing Congress" and convince enough voters to elevate the party to the House majority  To be sure, the minority leader recognizes that outright opposition carries risks  As a congressional scholar explains, "A program of consistent opposition to majority party proposals and a refusal to engage in compromise, while electorally valuable, means forsaking policy gains that may otherwise have been achieved " Another important aim of the minority leader is to develop an electorally attractive agenda of ideas and proposals that unites party members and appeals to core electoral supporters as well as independents and swing voters  Despite the minority leader's limited ability to set the House's agenda, there are still opportunities to raise minority priorities  For example, the minority leader may file discharge petitions in an effort to bring minority priorities to the floor  If the required 218 signatures on a discharge petition can be obtained—a number that demands at least some support from the majority—minority initiatives can be brought to the floor even despite opposition from the majority leadership or the committee(s) of jurisdiction (or both)  As a GOP minority leader explained, the challenge here is to "keep our people together, and to look for votes on the other side " Minority leaders may engage in a range of activities to publicize their party's priorities and to criticize those of the opposition  For instance, to keep their party colleagues "on message," they ensure that their party colleagues are sent packets of suggested press releases or "talking points" for constituent meetings in their districts; they help to organize "town hall meetings" in Members' districts around the country to publicize the party's agenda or a specific priority, such as health care or tax reform; they sponsor party "retreats" to discuss issues and assess the party's public image; they create "theme teams" to craft party messages that might be conveyed during the one-minute, morning hour, or special order period in the House; they conduct surveys of party colleagues to discern their policy preferences; they establish websites and Twitter feeds to highlight party priorities; they organize task forces or issue teams to formulate party programs and to develop strategies for communicating these programs to the public; and they appear on various media programs or write newspaper articles to win public support for the party's agenda  House minority leaders also hold joint news conferences with party colleagues and consult with their counterparts in the Senate  The overall objectives are to develop a coordinated communications strategy, to share ideas and information, and to present a united front on issues  Minority leaders also make floor speeches and may close debate for their side on major issues before the House  They must also be prepared "to debate on the floor, ad lib , no notes, on a moment's notice," remarked Minority Leader Michel  In brief, minority leaders are key strategists in developing and promoting the party's agenda and in outlining ways to respond to the opposition's arguments and proposals  A "Dear Colleague" letter delivered to House Democratic offices ahead of the August 2018 recess illustrates the point  In the letter, Minority Leader Pelosi outlined the party's agenda and provided this guidance to her Democratic colleagues: A key part of our For The People agenda is to clean up corruption to make Washington work for the American people     To honor the pledge of our For The People agenda, a Democratic majority will swiftly act to pass tougher ethics and campaign finance laws and crack down on the conduct that has poisoned the GOP Congress and the Trump Administration     In district events and on social media, we must drive home the clear contrast between the corruption of the GOP Congress and the better deal that Democrats are offering the American people  We will own August with strength, confidence and clarity, as we make our case to the American people  If his or her party controls the White House, the minority leader confers regularly with the President and his aides about issues before Congress, the Administration's agenda, and political events generally  Strategically, the role of the minority leader will vary depending on whether the President is of the same party or the other party  In general, minority leaders will work to advance the goals and aspirations of their party's President in Congress  When Robert Michel, R-IL, was minority leader (1981-1994), he typically functioned as the "point man" for Republican Presidents  President Ronald Reagan's 1981 policy successes in the Democratic-controlled House were due in no small measure to Minority Leader Michel's effectiveness in wooing so-called "Reagan Democrats" to support, for instance, the Administration's landmark budget reconciliation bill  There are occasions, of course, when minority leaders will fault the legislative initiatives of their President  On an Administration proposal that could adversely affect his district, Michel stated that he might "abdicate my leadership role [on this issue] since I can't harmonize my own views with the administration's " Minority Leader Gephardt publicly opposed a number of President Clinton's legislative initiatives, from "fast track" trade authority to various budget issues, and Minority Leader Pelosi came out against a multilateral trade agreement with Asian-Pacific countries negotiated by the Obama White House  When the President and House majority are of the same party, then the House minority leader assumes a larger role in formulating alternatives to executive branch initiatives and in acting as a national spokesperson for his or her party  "As Minority Leader during [President Lyndon Johnson's] Democratic administration, my responsibility has been to propose Republican alternatives," said Minority Leader Gerald Ford, R-MI  Greatly outnumbered in the House, Minority Leader Ford devised a political strategy that allowed Republicans to offer their alternatives in a manner that provided them political protection  As Ford explained, We used a technique of laying our program out in general debate  When we got to the amendment phase, we would offer our program as a substitute for the Johnson proposal  If we lost in the Committee of the Whole, then we would usually offer it as a motion to recommit and get a vote on that  And if we lost on the motion to recommit, our Republican members had a choice: They could vote against the Johnson program and say we did our best to come up with a better alternative  Or they could vote for it and make the same argument  Usually we lost; but when you're only 140 out of 435, you don't expect to win many  Ford also teamed with Senate Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen, R-IL, to act as national spokesmen for their party  They held a press conference every Thursday following the weekly joint leadership meeting, a tradition that began with Ford's predecessor as minority leader, Charles Halleck, R-IN  When Minority Leaders Dirksen and Halleck appeared together they were dubbed the "Ev and Charlie Show" by the press, and the "Republican National Committee budgeted $30,000 annually to produce the weekly news conference " Minority status, by itself, is often an important inducement for minority party members to stay together, to accommodate different interests, and to submerge intraparty factional disagreements  To hold a diverse membership together often requires extensive consultations and discussions with rank-and-file Members and with different factional groupings  As Minority Leader Gephardt said, We have weekly caucus meetings  We have daily leadership meetings  We have weekly ranking Member meetings  We have party effectiveness meetings  There's a lot more communication  I believe leadership is bottom up, not top down  I think you have to build policy and strategy and vision from the bottom up, and involve people in figuring out what that is  Gephardt added that "inclusion and empowerment of the people on the line have to be done to get the best performance" from the minority party  Other techniques for fostering party harmony include the appointment of task forces composed of party colleagues with conflicting views to reach consensus on issues; daily meetings in the l eader's office (or at breakfast, lunch, or dinner) to lay out floor strategy or political objectives for the minority party; periodic retreats to allow party members to discuss issues and interact with one another outside the confines of Capitol Hill; and the creation of new leadership positions as a way to reach out and involve a greater diversity of party members in the leadership structure  Beyond the party responsibilities of the minority leader are a number of institutional obligations associated with their position as a top House official  Many of these assignments or roles are spelled out in the standing rules of the House, while others have devolved upon the position in other ways  To be sure, the minority leader is provided with extra staff resources—beyond those accorded him or her as a Representative—to assist in carrying out diverse leadership functions  There are limits on the institutional role of the minority leader, because the majority party exercises disproportionate influence over the legislative agenda, partisan ratios on committees, staff resources, administrative operations, and the day-to-day schedule and management of floor activities  Under the rules of the House, the minority leader has certain roles and responsibilities  They include, among others, the following: Under Rule XIII, clause 6(c), the Rules Committee may not issue a "rule" that prevents the minority leader or a designee from offering a motion to recommit with instructions during initial House consideration of a bill or joint resolution  This motion allows the minority leader (or a designee) to offer a policy alternative to what the majority is proposing and obtain a floor vote on the minority's preferred solution  Under Rule IX, clause 2, a resolution "offered as a question of privilege by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader     shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn " This rule further references the minority leader with respect to the division of time for debate of these resolutions  If offered by the majority or minority leader, a valid question of privilege—one that involves "the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings"—receives immediate consideration by the House  Rule II, clause 6, states that the "Inspector General shall be appointed for a Congress by the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly " This rule further states that the minority leader and other specified House leaders shall be notified of any financial irregularity involving the House and receive audit reports of the inspector general  Under Rule X, clause 2, not later "than March 31 in the first session of a Congress, after consultation with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report to the House the authorization and oversight plans" of the standing committees along with any recommendations it or the House leaders have proposed to ensure the effective coordination of committees' oversight plans  Rule X, clause 5, stipulates, "At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker or a designee and the Minority Leader or a designee each shall name 10 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner from the respective party of such individual who are not members of the Committee on Ethics to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of that committee during that Congress " Another institutional prerogative of the minority leader is attendance at meetings of the Intelligence Committee  Rule X, clause 11, provides, "The Speaker and the Minority Leader shall be ex officio members of the select committee but shall have no vote in the select committee and may not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum thereof " In addition, each leader "may designate a respective leadership staff member to assist in the capacity of the Speaker or Minority Leader as ex officio member " In addition, the minority leader has a number of other institutional functions  For instance, the minority leader is sometimes statutorily authorized to appoint individuals to certain federal entities  The minority leader also selects three Members to serve as Private Calendar objectors—the majority leader names the other three—and serves on various commissions and groups, including the House Office Building Commission, the United States Capitol Preservation Commission, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group  After consultation with the Speaker the minority leader may convene an early organizational party caucus or conference  Informally, the minority leader maintains ties with majority party leaders to learn about the schedule and other House matters, consults with the majority with respect to reconvening the House per the usual formulation of conditional concurrent adjournment resolutions, and forges agreements or understandings with them insofar as feasible  By House tradition, time is not charged to their side when party leaders, including the minority leader, make extended remarks on the floor  Given the concentration of agenda control and other institutional resources in the majority leadership, the minority leader faces real challenges in promoting and publicizing the party's priorities, serving the interests of his rank-and-file Members, managing intraparty conflict, and forging party unity  The ultimate goal of the minority leader is to lead the party into majority status  Yet there is no set formula on how this is to be done  "If the history of elections is any guide," wrote a congressional scholar, "it seems apparent that the congressional record of the minority party is only one of many factors that may result in majority status  Most of the other factors cannot be controlled by the minority party and its leaders  " There is one central dilemma that confronts the minority leader: inferior numbers  This limitation can be overcome on occasion with the right strategic approach, but on many issues this might not be possible  One study of the House minority party summarizes the strategic challenge succinctly: The minority party in the House faces a strategic problem: how do you respond when given only a small slice of the legislative pie? Do you accept the slice you've been given, bargain for more, or use every means at your disposal to win the right to cut the pie yourself? It is this problem, and how the minority party chooses to solve it, that underlies the logic of minority party politics in the House of Representatives 

ground_truth: The House minority leader, the head of the "loyal opposition," is elected every two years by secret ballot of his or her party caucus or conference. The minority leader occupies a number of important institutional and party roles and responsibilities, and his or her fundamental goal is to recapture majority control of the House. From a party perspective, the minority leader has a wide range of assignments, all geared toward retaking majority control of the House. Five principal party activities direct the work of the minority leader. First, he or she provides campaign assistance to party incumbents and challengers. Second, the minority leader devises strategies, in consultation with like-minded colleagues, to advance party objectives. Third, the minority leader works to promote and publicize the party's agenda. Fourth, the minority leader, if his or her party controls the White House, confers regularly with the President and his aides about issues before Congress, the Administration's agenda, and political events generally. Fifth, the minority leader strives to promote party harmony so as to maximize the chances for legislative and political success. From an institutional perspective, the rules of the House assign a number of specific responsibilities to the minority leader. For example, Rule XIII, clause 6, grants the minority leader (or a designee) the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions; and Rule II, clause 6, states that the Inspector General shall be appointed by joint recommendation of the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader. The minority leader also has other institutional duties, such as appointing individuals to certain federal or congressional entities.