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



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



Report 2: From its headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming to its terminus in the Gulf of California, the Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles  The river runs through seven U S  states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico  Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior [DOI]) plays a prominent role in the management of the basin's waters  In the Lower Basin (i e , Arizona, Nevada, and California), Reclamation also serves as water master on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, a role that elevates the status of the federal government in basin water management  The federal role in the management of Colorado River water is magnified by the multiple federally owned and operated water storage and conveyance facilities in the basin, which provide low-cost water and hydropower supplies to water users  Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes  The river's flow and stored water also are important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreation, among other uses  A majority (70%) of basin water supplies are used to irrigate 5 5 million acres of land; basin waters also provide M&I water supplies to nearly 40 million people  Much of the area that depends on the river for water supplies is outside of the drainage area for the Colorado River Basin  Storage and conveyance facilities on the Colorado River provide trans-basin diversions that serve areas such as Cheyenne, WY; multiple cities in Colorado's Front Range (e g , Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs, CO); Provo, UT; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM; and Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Imperial Valley in Southern California ( Figure 1 )  Colorado River hydropower facilities can provide up to 42 gigawatts of electrical power per year  The river also provides habitat for a wide range of species, including several federally endangered species  It flows through 7 national wildlife refuges and 11 National Park Service (NPS) units; these and other areas of the river support important recreational opportunities  Precipitation and runoff in the basin are highly variable  Water conditions on the river depend largely on snowmelt in the basin's northern areas  Observed data (1906-2018) show that natural flows in the Colorado River Basin in the 20 th century averaged about 14 8 million acre-feet (MAF) annually  Flows have dipped significantly during the current drought, which dates to 2000; natural flows from 2000 to 2018 averaged approximately 12 4 MAF per year   In 2018, Reclamation estimated that the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping  The dry conditions are consistent with prior droughts in the basin that were identified through tree ring studies; some of these droughts lasted for decades  Climate change impacts, including warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, may further increase the likelihood of prolonged drought in the basin  Pursuant to the multiple compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines governing Colorado River operations (collectively known as the Law of the River ), Congress and the federal government play a prominent role in the management of the Colorado River  Specifically, Congress funds and oversees Reclamation's management of Colorado River Basin facilities, including facility operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species  Congress has also approved and continues to actively consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters, and development of new and expanded water storage in the basin  In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate drought and stretch basin water supplies and has considered new authorities for Reclamation to combat drought and enter into agreements with states and Colorado River contractors  This report provides background on management of the Colorado River, including a discussion of trends and agreements since 2000  It also discusses the congressional role in the management of basin waters  In the latter part of the 19 th century, interested parties in the Colorado River Basin began to recognize that local interests alone could not solve the challenges associated with development of the Colorado River  Plans conceived by parties in California's Imperial Valley to divert water from the mainstream of the Colorado River were thwarted because these proposals were subject to the sovereignty of both the United States and Mexico  The river also presented engineering challenges, such as deep canyons and erratic water flows, and economic hurdles that prevented local or state groups from building the necessary storage facilities and canals to provide an adequate water supply  Because local or state groups could not resolve these "national problems," Congress considered ideas to control the Colorado River and resolve potential conflicts between the states  Thus, in an effort to resolve these conflicts and prevent litigation, Congress gave its consent for the states and Reclamation to enter into an agreement to apportion Colorado River water supplies in 1921  The below sections discuss the resulting agreement, the Colorado River Compact, and other documents and agreements that form the basis of the Law of the River, which governs Colorado River operations  The Colorado River Compact of 1922, negotiated by the seven basin states and the federal government, was signed by all but one basin state (Arizona)  Under the compact, the states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ, near the Utah border  Each basin was apportioned 7 5 MAF annually for beneficial consumptive use, and the Lower Basin was given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by an additional 1 MAF annually  The agreement also required Upper Basin states to deliver to the Lower Basin a total of 75 MAF over each 10-year period, thus allowing for averaging over time to make up for low-flow years  The compact did not address inter- or intrastate allocations of water (which it left to future agreements and legislation), nor did it address water to be made available to Mexico, the river's natural terminus; this matter was addressed in subsequent international agreements  The compact was not to become binding until it had been approved by the legislatures of each of the signatory states and by Congress  Congress approved and modified the Colorado River Compact in the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) of 1928  The act ratified the 1922 compact, authorized the construction of a federal facility to impound water in the Lower Basin (Boulder Dam, later renamed Hoover Dam) and related facilities to deliver water in Southern California (e g , the All-American Canal, which delivers Colorado River water to California's Imperial Valley), and apportioned the Lower Basin's 7 5 MAF per year among the three Lower Basin states  It provided 4 4 MAF per year to California, 2 8 MAF to Arizona, and 300,000 acre-feet (AF) to Nevada, with the states to divide any surplus waters among them  It also directed the Secretary of the Interior to serve as the sole contracting authority for Colorado River water use in the Lower Basin and authorized several storage projects for study in the Upper Basin  Congress's approval of the compact in the BCPA was conditioned on a number of factors, including ratification by California and five other states (thereby allowing the compact to become effective without Arizona's concurrence), and California agreeing by act of its legislature to limit its water use to 4 4 MAF per year and not more than half of any surplus waters  California met this requirement by passing the California Limitation Act of March 4, 1929  Arizona did not ratify the Colorado River Compact until 1944, at which time the state began to pursue a federal project to bring Colorado River water to its primary population centers in Phoenix and Tucson  California opposed the project, arguing that under the doctrine of prior appropriation, California's historical use of the river trumped Arizona's rights to the Arizona allotment  California also argued that Colorado River apportionments under the BCPA included water developed on Colorado River tributaries, whereas Arizona claimed, among other things, that these apportionments included the river's mainstream waters only  In 1952, Arizona filed suit in the U S  Supreme Court to settle the issue  Eleven years later, in the 1963 Arizona v  California decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona, finding that Congress had intended to apportion the mainstream of the Colorado River and that California and Arizona each would receive one-half of surplus flows  The same Supreme Court decision held that Section 5 of the BCPA controlled the apportionment of waters among Lower Basin States, and that the BCPA (and not the law of prior appropriation) controlled the apportionment of water among Lower Basin states  The ruling was notable for its directive to forgo traditional Reclamation deference to state law under the Reclamation Act of 1902, and formed the basis for the Secretary of the Interior's unique role as water master for the Lower Basin  The decision also held that Native American reservations on the Colorado River were entitled to priority under the BCPA  Later decrees by the Supreme Court in 1964 and 1979 supplemented the 1963 decision  Following the Arizona v  California decision, Congress eventually authorized Arizona's conveyance project for Colorado River water, the Central Arizona Project (CAP), in the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA)  As a condition for California's support of the project, Arizona agreed that, in the event of shortage conditions, California's 4 4 MAF has priority over CAP water supplies  In 1944, the United States signed a water treaty with Mexico (1944 U S -Mexico Water Treaty) to guide how the two countries share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande  The treaty established water allocations for the two countries and created a governance framework (the International Boundary and Water Commission) to resolve disputes arising from the treaty's execution  The treaty requires the United States to provide Mexico with 1 5 MAF of water annually, plus an additional 200,000 AF when a surplus is declared  During drought, the United States may reduce deliveries to Mexico in similar proportion to reductions of U S  consumptive uses  The treaty has been supplemented by additional agreements between the United States and Mexico, known as m inutes   Projects originally authorized for study in the Upper Basin under BCPA were not allowed to move forward until the Upper Basin states determined their individual water allocations, which they did under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948  The Upper Basin Compact established Colorado (where the largest share of runoff to the river originates) as the largest entitlement holder in the Upper Basin, with rights to 51 75% of any Upper Basin flows after Colorado River Compact obligations to the Lower Basin have been met  Other states also received percentage-based allocations, including Wyoming (14%), New Mexico (11 25%), and Utah (23%)  Arizona was allocated 50,000 AF in addition to its Lower Basin apportionment, in recognition of the small portion of the state in the Upper Basin  Basin allocations by state following approval of the Upper Basin Compact (i e , the allocations that generally guide current water deliveries) are shown below in Figure 2   The Upper Basin Compact also established the Upper Colorado River Commission, which coordinates operations and positions among Upper Basin states  Subsequent federal legislation paved the way for development of Upper Basin allocations  The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of 1956 authorized storage reservoirs and dams in the Upper Basin, including the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Curecanti Dams  The act also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, which receives revenues collected in connection with the projects, to be made available for defraying the project's costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency expenditures  In addition to the aforementioned authorization of CAP in Arizona, the 1968 CRBPA amended CRSP to authorize several additional Upper Basin projects (e g , the Animas La Plata and Central Utah projects) as CRSP participating projects  It also directed that the Secretary of the Interior propose operational criteria for Colorado River Storage Project units (including the releases of water from Lake Powell) that prioritize (1) Treaty Obligations to Mexico, (2) the Colorado River Compact requirement for the Upper Basin to deliver 75 MAF to Lower Basin states over any 10-year period, and (3) carryover storage to meet these needs  The CRBPA also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, both of which were authorized to utilize revenues from power generation from relevant Upper and Lower Basin facilities to fund certain expenses in the sub-basins  Due to the basin's large water storage projects, basin water users are able to store as much as 60 MAF, or about four times the Colorado River's annual flows  Thus, storage and operations in the basin receive considerable attention, particularly at the basin's two largest dams and their storage reservoirs: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell in the Upper Basin (26 2 MAF of storage capacity) and Hoover Dam/Lake Mead in the Lower Basin (26 1 MAF)  The status of these projects is of interest to basin stakeholders and observers and is monitored closely by Reclamation  Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, provides the linchpin for Upper Basin storage and regulates flows from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin, pursuant to the Colorado River Compact  It also generates approximately 5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity per year, which the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) supplies to 5 8 million customers in Upper Basin States  Other significant storage in the Upper Basin includes the initial "units" of the CRSP: the Aspinall Unit in Colorado (including Blue Mesa, Crystal, and Morrow Point dams on the Gunnison River, with combined storage capacity of more than 1 MAF), the Flaming Gorge Unit in Utah (including Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River, with a capacity of 3 78 MAF), and the Navajo Unit in New Mexico (including Navajo Dam on the San Juan River, with a capacity of 1 MAF)  The Upper Basin is also home to 16 "participating" projects which are authorized to use water for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses, and other purposes  In the Lower Basin, Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, provides the majority of the Lower Basin's storage and generates about 4 2 billion KWh of electricity per year for customers in California, Arizona, and Nevada  Also important for Lower Basin Operations are Davis Dam/Lake Mohave, which regulates flows to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty, and Parker Dam/Lake Havasu, which impounds water for diversion into the Colorado River Aqueduct (thereby allowing for deliveries to urban areas in southern California) and CAP (allowing for diversion to users in Arizona)  Further downstream on the Arizona/California border, Imperial Dam (a diversion dam) diverts Colorado River water to the All-American Canal for use in California's Imperial and Coachella Valleys  Reclamation monitors Colorado River reservoir levels and projects them 24 months into the future in monthly studies (called 24-month studies )  The studies take into account forecasted hydrology, reservoir operations, and diversion and consumptive use schedules to model a single scenario of reservoir conditions  The studies inform operating decisions by Reclamation looking one to two years into the future  They express water storage conditions at Lake Mead and Lake Powell in terms of elevation, as feet above mean sea level (ft)  In addition to the 24-month studies, the CRBPA requires the Secretary to transmit to Congress and the governors of the basin states, by January 1 of each year, a report describing the actual operation for the preceding water year and the projected operation for the coming year  This report is commonly referred to as the annual operating plan (AOP)  The AOP's projected January 1 water conditions for the upcoming calendar year establish a baseline for future annual operations  Since the adoption of guidelines by Reclamation and basin states in 2007 (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines "), operations of the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams have been tied to specific pool elevations at Lake Mead and Lake Powell  For Lake Mead, the first level of shortage (1 st Tier Shortage Condition), under which Arizona and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead falls below 1,075 ft  For Lake Powell, releases under tiered operations are based on storage levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead (specific delivery curtailments based on lake levels similar to Lake Mead have not been adopted)  As of January 2019, Reclamation predicted that Lake Mead's 2019 elevation would remain above 1,075 ft (approximately 9 6 MAF of storage) and that Lake Powell would remain at its prior year level (i e , the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier) during 2019  However, Reclamation also projected that there was a 69% chance of a 1 st Tier Shortage Condition at Lake Mead beginning in January 2020  Reclamation predicted a small (3%) chance of Lake Powell dropping to 3,490 feet, or minimum power pool (i e , a level beyond which hydropower could not be generated) by 2020; the chance of this occurring by 2022 was greater (15%)  Improved hydrology for 2019 may decrease the likelihood of shortage in the immediate future  Construction of most of the Colorado River's water supply infrastructure predated major federal environmental protection statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U S C  §§4321 et seq  ) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat  884, 16 U S C  §§1531-1544)  Thus, many of the environmental impacts associated with the development of basin resources were not originally taken into account  Over time, multiple efforts have been initiated to mitigate these effects  Some of the highest-profile efforts have been associated with water quality (in particular, salinity control) and the effects of facility operations on endangered species  Salinity and water quality are long-standing issues in the Colorado River Basin  Parts of the Upper Basin are covered by salt-bearing shale (which increases salt content in water inflows), and salinity content increases as the river flows downstream due to both natural leaching and return flows from agricultural irrigation  The 1944 U S -Mexico Water Treaty did not set water quality or salinity standards in the Colorado River Basin  However, after years of dispute between the United States and Mexico regarding the salinity of the water reaching Mexico's border, the two countries reached an agreement on August 30, 1973, with the signing of Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission  The agreement guarantees Mexico that the average salinity of its treaty deliveries will be no more than 115 parts per million higher than the salt content of the water diverted to the All-American Canal at Imperial Dam in Southern California  To control the salinity of Colorado River water in accordance with this agreement, Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 ( P L  93-320 ), which authorized desalting and salinity control facilities to improve Colorado River water quality  The most prominent of these facilities is the Yuma Desalting Plant, which was largely completed in 1992 but has never operated at capacity  In 1974, the seven basin states also established water quality standards for salinity through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum  Congress enacted the ESA in 1973  As basin species became listed in accordance with the act, federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders consulted with the U S  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address the conservation of the listed species  As a result of these consultations, several major programs have been developed to protect and restore fish species on the Colorado River and its tributaries  Summaries of some of the key programs are below  The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program was established in 1988 to assist in the recovery of four species of endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin  Congress authorized this program in P L  106-392   The program is implemented through several stakeholders under a cooperative agreement signed by the governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; DOI; and the Administrator of WAPA  The recovery goals of the program are to reduce threats to species and improve their status so they are eventually delisted from the ESA  Some of the actions taken in the past include providing adequate instream flows for fish and their habitat, restoring habitat, reducing nonnative fish, augmenting fish populations with stocked fish, and conducting research and monitoring  Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the program and provides the majority of federal funds for implementation  It is also funded through a portion of Upper Basin hydropower revenues from WAPA; FWS; the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah; and water users, among others  The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program was established in 1992 to assist in the recovery of ESA-listed fish species on the San Juan River, the Colorado's largest tributary  The program is concerned with the recovery of the Razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ) and Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus Lucius )  Congress authorized this program in P L  106-392 with the aim to protect the genetic integrity and population of listed species, conserve and restore habitat (including water quality), reduce nonnative species, and monitor species  The Recovery Program is coordinated by FWS  Reclamation is responsible for operating the Animas-La Plata Project and Navajo Dam on the San Juan River in a way that reduces effects on the fish populations  The program is funded by a portion of revenues from power generation, Reclamation, participating states, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs  Recovery efforts for listed fish are coordinated with the Upper Colorado River Program discussed above  The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 in response to a directive from Congress under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 ( P L  102-575 ) to operate Glen Canyon Dam "in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established " This program uses experiments to determine how water flows affect natural resources south of the dam  Reclamation is in charge of modifying flows for experiments, and the U S  Geological Survey conducts monitoring and other studies to evaluate the effects of the flows  The results are expected to better inform managers how to provide water deliveries and conserve species  The majority of program funding comes from hydropower revenues generated at Glen Canyon Dam  The MSCP is a multistakeholder initiative to conserve 27 species (8 listed under ESA) along the Lower Colorado River while maintaining water and power supplies for farmers, tribes, industries, and urban residents  The MSCP began in 2005 and is planned to last for at least 50 years  The MSCP was created through consultation under ESA  To achieve compliance under ESA, federal entities involved in managing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River met with resource agencies from Arizona, California, and Nevada; Native American Tribes; environmental groups; and recreation interests to develop a program to conserve species along a portion of the Colorado River  A biological opinion (BiOp) issued by the FWS in 1997 served as a basis for the program  Modifications to the 1997 BiOp were made in 2002, and in 2005, the BiOp was renewed for 50 years  Nonfederal entities received an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA for their activities in 2005 and shortly thereafter implemented a habitat conservation plan  The objective of the MSCP is to create habitat for listed species, augment the populations of species listed under ESA, maintain current and future water diversions and power production, and abide by the incidental take authorizations for listed species under the ESA  The estimated total cost of the program over its lifetime is approximately $626 million in 2003 dollars ($882 million in 2018 dollars) and is to be split evenly between Reclamation (50%) and the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona (who collectively fund the remaining 50%)  The management and implementation of the MSCP is the responsibility of Reclamation, in consultation with a steering committee of stakeholders  Twenty-two federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin have quantified water diversion rights that have been confirmed by court decree or final settlement  These tribes collectively possess rights to 2 9 MAF per year of Colorado River water  However, as of 2015, these tribes typically were using just over half of their quantified rights  Additionally, 13 other basin tribes have reserved water rights claims that have yet to be resolved  Increased water use by tribes with existing water rights, and/or future settlement of claims and additional consumptive use of basin waters by other tribes, is likely to exacerbate the competition for basin water resources  The potential for increased use of tribal water rights (which, once ratified, are counted toward state-specific allocations where the tribal reservation is located) has been studied in recent years  In 2014, Reclamation, working with a group of 10 tribes with significant reserved water rights claims on the Colorado River, initiated a study known as the 10 Tribes Study   The study, published in 2018, estimated that, cumulatively, the 10 tribes could have reserved water rights (including unresolved claims) to divert nearly 2 8 MAF per year  Of these water rights, approximately 2 MAF per year were decreed and an additional 785,273 AF (mostly in the Upper Basin) remained unresolved  The report estimated that, overall, the 10 tribes are diverting (i e , making use of) almost 1 5 MAF of their 2 8 MAF in resolved and unresolved claims  Table 1 shows these figures at the basin and sub-basin levels  According to the study, the majority of unresolved claims in the Upper Basin are associated with the Ute Tribe in Utah (370,370 AF per year), the Navajo Nation in Utah (314,926 AF), and the Navajo Nation in the Upper Basin in Arizona (77,049 AF)  When the Colorado River Compact was originally approved, it was assumed based on the historical record that average annual flows on the river were 16 4 MAF per year  According to Reclamation data, from 1906 to 2018, observed natural flows on the river at Lee Ferry, AZ—the common point of measurement for observed basin flows—averaged 14 8 MAF annually  Natural flows from 2000 to 2018 (i e , during the ongoing drought) averaged considerably less than that—12 4 MAF annually  While natural flows have trended down, consumptive use in the basin has grown and has regularly exceeded natural flows since 2000  From 1971 to 2015, average total consumptive use grew from 13 MAF to over 15 MAF annually  Combined, the two trends have caused a significant drawdown of basin storage levels ( Figure 3 )  From 2009 to 2015, the largest consumptive water use occurred in the Lower Basin (7 5 MAF per year), while Upper Basin consumptive use averaged about 3 8 MAF annually  Use of Treaty water by Mexico (1 5 MAF per year) and evaporative loss from reservoirs (approximately 2 MAF per year) in both basins also factored significantly into total basin consumptive use  Notably, consumptive use in the Lower Basin, combined with mandatory releases to Mexico, regularly exceeds the mandatory 8 23 MAF per year that must be released from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and Mexico pursuant to Reclamation requirements  This imbalance between Lower Basin inflows and use, known as the structural deficit , causes additional stress on basin storage  The current drought in the basin has included some of the lowest flows on record  According to Reclamation, the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping  Observers have pointed out that flows in some recent years have been lower than would be expected given the amount of precipitation that has occurred, and have noted that warmer temperatures appear to be a significant contributor to these diminished flows  Based on these and other observations, some have argued that Colorado River flows are unlikely to return to 20 th century averages, and that future water supply risk is high  A 2012 study by Reclamation projected a long-term imbalance in supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin  In the study, Reclamation noted that the basin had thus far avoided serious impacts on water supplies due to the significant storage within the system, coupled with the fact that some Upper Basin states have yet to fully develop the use of their allocations  However, Reclamation projected that in the coming half century, flows would decrease by an average of 9% at Lee Ferry and drought would increase in frequency and duration  At the same time, Reclamation projected that demand for basin water supplies would increase, with annual consumptive use projected to rise from 15 MAF to 18 1-20 4 MAF by 2050, depending on population growth  A range of 64%-76% of the growth in demand was expected to come from increased M&I demand  Reclamation's 2012 study also posited several potential ways to alleviate future shortages in the basin, such as alternative water supplies, demand management, drought action plans, water banking, and water transfer/markets  Some of these options already are being pursued  In particular, some states have become increasingly active in banking unused Colorado River surface water supplies, including through groundwater banks or storage of unused surface waters in Lake Mead (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines ")  Drought conditions throughout the basin have raised concerns about potential negative impacts on water supplies  Concerns center on uncertainty that might result if the Secretary of the Interior were to determine that a shortage condition exists in the Lower Basin, and that related curtailments were warranted  Some in Upper Basin States are also concerned about the potential for a c ompact call of Lower Basin states on Upper Basin states  Drought and other uncertainties related to water rights priorities (e g , potential tribal water rights claims) spurred the development of several efforts that generally attempted to relieve pressure on basin water supplies, stabilize storage levels, and provide assurances of available water supplies  Some of the most prominent developments since the year 2000 (i e , the beginning of the current drought) are discussed below  Prior to the 2003 QSA, California had been using approximately 5 2 MAF of Colorado River on average each year (with most of its excess water use attributed to urban areas)  Under the QSA, an agreement between several California water districts and DOI, California agreed to reduce its use to the required 4 4 MAF under the Law of the River  It sought to accomplish this aim by quantifying Colorado River entitlement levels of several water contractors; authorizing efforts to conserve additional water supplies (e g , the lining of the All-American Canal); and providing for several large-scale, long-term agriculture-to-urban water transfers  The QSA also committed the state to a path for restoration and mitigation related to the Salton Sea, a water body in Southern California that was historically sustained by Colorado River irrigation runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys  A related agreement between Reclamation and the Lower Basin states, the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP), went into effect concurrently with the QSA in 2004  IOPP is an administrative mechanism that provides an accounting of inadvertent overruns in consumptive use compared to the annual entitlements of water users in the Lower Basin  These overruns must be "paid back" in the calendar year following the overruns, and the paybacks must be made only from "extraordinary conservation measures" above and beyond normal consumptive use  The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act ( P L  108-451 , AWSA) significantly altered the allocation of CAP water in Arizona and set the stage for some of the cutbacks in the state that are currently under discussion  It ratified three water rights settlements (one in each title) between the federal government and the State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the Tohono O'odham Nation, respectively  For the state and its CAP water users, the settlement resolved a final repayment cost for CAP by reducing the water users' reimbursable repayment obligation from about $2 3 billion to $1 65 billion  Additionally, Arizona agreed to new tribal and non-tribal allocations of CAP water so that approximately half of CAP's annual allotment would be available to Indian tribes in Arizona, at a higher priority than most other uses  The tribal communities were authorized to lease the water so long as the water remains within the state via the state's water banking authority  The act also authorized funds to cover the cost of infrastructure required to deliver the water to the Indian communities, much of it derived from power receipts accruing to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund  Another significant development in the basin was the 2007 adoption of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines)  Development of the agreement began in 2005, when, in response to drought in the Southwest and the decline in basin water storage (and a record low point in Lake Powell of 33% active capacity), the Secretary of the Interior instructed Reclamation to develop coordinated strategies for Colorado River reservoir operations during drought or shortages  The resulting guidelines included criteria for releases from Lakes Mead and Powell determined by "trigger levels" in both reservoirs, as well as a schedule of Lower Basin curtailments at different operational tiers ( Table 2 )  Under the guidelines, Arizona and Nevada, which have junior rights to California, would face reduced allocations if Lake Mead elevations dropped below 1,075 ft  At the time, it was thought that the 2007 Guidelines would significantly reduce the risk of Lake Mead falling to 1,025 feet  The guidelines are considered "interim" because they were scheduled to expire in 20 years (i e , at the end of 2026)  The 2007 agreement also included for the first time a mechanism by which parties in the Lower Basin were able to store conserved water in Lake Mead, known as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS)  Reclamation accounts for this water annually, and the users storing the water may access the surplus in future years, in accordance with the Law of the River  From 2013 to 2017, the portion of Lake Mead water in storage that was classified as ICS ranged from a low of 711,864 AF in 2015 to a high of 1 261 MAF in 2017 ( Figure 4 )  In 2014, Reclamation and several major basin water supply agencies (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Denver Water) executed a memorandum of understanding to provide funding for voluntary conservation projects and reductions of water use  These activities had the goal of developing new system water , to be applied toward storage in Lake Mead, by the end of 2019  Congress formally authorized federal participation in these efforts in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P L  113-235 , Division D ), with an initial sunset date for the authority at the end of FY2018  The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-244 , Division A ) extended the authority through the end of FY2022, with the stipulation that Upper Basin agreements could not proceed without the participation of the Upper Basin states through the Upper Colorado River Commission  As of mid-2018, Reclamation estimated that the program had resulted in a total of 194,000 AF of system water conserved  These savings were carried out through 64 projects conserving 47,000 AF in the Upper Basin and 11 projects conserving 147,000 AF in the Lower Basin  In 2017, the United States and Mexico signed Minute 323, which extended and replaced elements of a previous agreement, Minute 319, signed in 2012  Minute 323 included, among other things, options for Mexico to hold water in reserve in U S  reservoirs for emergencies and water conservation efforts, as well as U S  commitments for flows to support the ecological health of the Colorado River Delta  It also extended initial Mexican cutback commitments made under Minute 319 (which were similar in structure to the 2007 cutbacks negotiated for Lower Basin states) and established a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan that included additional cutbacks that would be triggered if drought contingency plans (DCPs) are approved by U S  basin states (see following section, " 2019 Drought Contingency Plans ")  Ongoing drought conditions and the potential for water supply shortages prompted discussions and negotiations focused on how to conserve additional basin water supplies  After several years of negotiations, on March 19, 2019, Reclamation and the Colorado River Basin states finalized DCPs for both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin  These plans required final authorization by Congress to be implemented  Following House and Senate hearings on the DCPs in early April, on April 16, 2019, Congress authorized the DCP agreements in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act ( P L  116-14 )  Each of the basin-level DCPs is discussed below in more detail  The Upper Basin DCP aims to protect against Lake Powell reaching critically low elevations; it also authorizes storage of conserved water in the Upper Basin that could help establish the foundation for a water use reduction effort (i e , a "Demand Management Program") that may be developed in the future  Under the Upper Basin DCP, the Upper Basin states agree to operate system units to keep the surface of Lake Powell above 3,525 ft, which is 35 ft above the minimum elevation needed to run the dam's hydroelectric plant  Other large Upper Basin reservoirs (e g , Navajo Reservoir, Blue Mesa Reservoir, and Flaming Gorge Reservoir) would be operated to protect the targeted Lake Powell elevation, potentially through drawdown of their own storage  If established by the states, an Upper Basin DCP Demand Management Program would likely entail willing seller/buyer agreements allowing for temporary paid reductions in water use that would provide for more storage volume in Lake Powell  Reclamation and other observers have stated their belief that these efforts will significantly decrease the risk of Lake Powell's elevation falling below 3,490 ft, an elevation at which significantly reduced hydropower generation is possible  The Lower Basin DCP is designed to require Arizona, California, and Nevada to curtail use and thereby contribute additional water to Lake Mead storage at predetermined "trigger" elevations, while also creating additional flexibility to incentivize voluntary conservation of water to be stored in Lake Mead, thereby increasing lake levels  Under the DCP, Nevada and Arizona (which were already set to have their supplies curtailed beginning at 1,075 ft under the 2007 Interim Guidelines) are to contribute additional supplies to maintain higher lake levels (i e , beyond previous commitments)  The reductions of supply would reach their maximums when reservoir levels drop below 1,045 ft  At the same time, the Lower Basin DCP would, for the first time, include commitments for delivery cutbacks by California  These cutbacks would begin with 200,000 AF (4 5%) in reductions at Lake Mead elevations of 1,040-1,045 ft, and would increase to as much as 350,000 AF (7 9%) at elevations of 1,025 ft or lower  The curtailments in the Lower Basin DCP are in addition to those agreed to under the 2007 Interim Guidelines and under Minute 323 with Mexico  Specific and cumulative reductions are shown in Table 2   In addition to the state-level reductions, under the Lower Basin DCP, Reclamation also would agree to pursue efforts to add 100,000 AF or more of system water within the basin  Some of the largest and most controversial reductions under the Lower Basin DCP would occur in Arizona, where pursuant to previous changes under the 2004 AWSA, a large group of agricultural users would face major cutbacks to their CAP water supplies  Reclamation has noted that the Lower Basin DCP significantly decreases the chance of Lake Mead elevations falling below 1,020 ft, which would be a critically low level  Some parties have pointed out that although the DCP is unlikely to prevent a shortage from being declared at 1,075 ft, it would slow the rate at which the lake recedes thereafter  Combined with the commitments from Mexico, total planned cutbacks under shortage scenarios (i e , all commitments to date, combined) would reduce Lower Basin consumptive use by 241,000 AF to 1 375 MAF per year, depending on Lake Mead's elevation  Although the DCPs and the related negotiations were widely praised, some expressed concerns related to the implementation of the DCPs as they relate to federal and state environmental laws  Most Colorado River contractors supported the agreements, but one major basin contractor, Imperial Irrigation District (IID, a major holder of Colorado River water rights in Southern California), did not approve the DCPs  IID has argued that the DCPs will further degrade the Salton Sea, a shrinking and ecologically degraded water body in southern California that relies on drainage flows from lands irrigated using Colorado River water  Following enactment of the DCPs, IID filed suit in state court alleging that state approval of the DCPs violated the California Environmental Quality Act  Others have questioned whether federal implementation of the DCPs without a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement might violate federal law, such as NEPA  The principal role of Congress as it relates to storage facilities on the Colorado River is funding and oversight of facility operations, construction, and programs to protect and restore endangered species (e g , Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Program)  In the Upper Basin, Colorado River facilities include the 17 active participating units in the Colorado River Storage Projects, as well as the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project  In the Lower Basin, major facilities include the Salt River Project and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Hoover Dam and All-American Canal, Yuma and Gila Projects, Parker-Davis Project, Central Arizona Project, and Robert B  Griffith Project (now Southern Nevada Water System)  Congressional appropriations in support of Colorado River projects and programs typically account for a portion of overall project budgets  For example, the Lower Colorado Region's FY2017 operating budget was $517 million; $119 8 million of this total was provided by discretionary appropriations, and the remainder of funding came from power revenues (which are made available without further appropriation) and nonfederal partners  In recent years, Congress has also authorized and appropriated funding that has targeted the Colorado River Basin in general (i e , the Pilot System Conservation Plan)  Congress may choose to extend or amend these and other authorities specific to the basin  While discretionary appropriations for the Colorado River are of regular interest to Congress, Congress may also be asked to weigh in on Colorado River funding that is not subject to regular appropriations  For instance, in the coming years, the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund is projected to face a decrease in revenues and may thus have less funding available for congressionally established funding priorities for the Development Fund  Congress has previously approved Indian water rights settlements associated with more than 2 MAF of tribal diversion rights on the Colorado River  Only a portion of this water has been developed  Congress likely will face the decision of whether to fund development of previously authorized infrastructure associated with Indian water rights settlements in the Colorado River Basin  For example, the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is being built to serve the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico  Congress may also be asked to consider new settlements that may result in tribal rights to more Colorado River water  For example, in the 116 th Congress, H R  244 would authorize the Navajo Nation Water Settlement in Utah  In addition to development of new tribal water supplies, some states in the Upper Basin have indicated their intent to further develop their Colorado River water entitlements  For example, in the 115 th Congress, Section 4310 of America's Water Infrastructure Act ( P L  115-270 ) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of Wyoming whereby the state would fund a project to add erosion control to Fontenelle Reservoir in the Upper Basin  The project would allow the state to potentially utilize an additional 80,000 acre-feet of water storage on the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River  Congress may remain interested in implementation of the DCPs, including their success or failure at stemming further Colorado River cutbacks and the extent to which the plans comply with federal environmental laws such as NEPA  Similarly, Congress may be interested in the overall hydrologic status of the Colorado River Basin, as well as future efforts to plan for increased demand in the basin and stretch limited basin water supplies 
Report 2:  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 

ground_truth: State staffs Foreign Service employees to more than 270 embassies and consulates worldwide to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. In 2009 and 2012, GAO identified ongoing Foreign Service staffing gaps. GAO was asked to review State's Foreign Service staffing. This report examines (1) vacancies in State's Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State's efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed State's Global Employment Management System data as of March 2018. The system includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, including the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions and whether each position is filled or vacant. GAO also reviewed its relevant prior reports and State workforce planning documents. In addition, GAO interviewed State staff at 10 overseas posts, selected on the basis of large numbers of Foreign Service vacancies and diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant at these posts, among other factors. The Department of State's (State) data show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts since 2008. According to the data, 13 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of March 2018. This percentage is similar to the percentages GAO reported for 2008 and 2012, when 14 percent of these positions were vacant. In addition, State's data show persistent vacancies at overseas posts in generalist positions that help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and in specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. State's data also show persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts with State's highest foreign policy priorities and in regions with security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests. According to staff at overseas posts, Foreign Service vacancies adversely affect State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Staff at overseas posts told us that vacancies increase workloads, contributing to low morale and higher stress for Foreign Service staff and that vacancies in Political and Economic positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—limit the reporting on political and economic issues that posts are able to provide to State headquarters. Notably, officials also stated that vacancies in specialist positions may heighten security risks at overseas posts and disrupt post operations. For instance, some overseas post staff said that vacancies in Information Management positions had increased the vulnerability of posts' computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats. State described various efforts—implemented by multiple offices in the department —to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies, but these efforts are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. An example of State's efforts is the “Hard-to-Fill” program, which allows Civil Service staff an opportunity to fill a Foreign Service vacancy on a single overseas tour. According to GAO's 2017 High-Risk Series report, an agency should design and implement an action plan—integrated across its relevant offices—that defines the root causes of all skills gaps and suggests corrective measures. However, State has not developed such an action plan for reducing persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Without developing an integrated action plan, overseas Foreign Service vacancies may persist. As a result, State's ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals and help ensure secure and efficient operations could be adversely impacted. GAO recommends that State develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies. State concurred with our recommendation and noted that it will take steps to develop an integrated action plan.

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



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

Report 1: State is the lead agency involved in implementing American foreign policy and representing the United States abroad  According to State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, State’s goals are to (1) protect America’s security at home and abroad, (2) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation, (3) promote American leadership through balanced engagement, and (4) ensure effectiveness and accountability to the American taxpayer  State’s Foreign Service employees serve in a variety of functions at overseas posts as either generalists or specialists  Foreign Service generalists help formulate and implement U S  foreign policy and are assigned to work in one of five career tracks: consular, economic, management, political, or public diplomacy  Generalists at overseas posts collect information and engage with foreign governments and citizens of foreign countries and report the results of these interactions back to State headquarters in Washington, D C , among other functions  Foreign Service specialists abroad support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts and serve in one of 25 different skill groups, in positions such as security officer or information management  Specialists at overseas posts play a critical role in ensuring the security and maintenance of the posts’ facilities, computer networks, and supplies as well as the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff, among other functions  State may require Foreign Service employees to be available for service anywhere in the world, as needed, and State has the authority to direct Foreign Service employees to any of its posts overseas or to its headquarters in Washington, D C  However, as noted in our 2012 report, State generally does not use this authority, preferring other means of filling high-priority positions, according to State officials  The process of assigning Foreign Service employees to their positions typically begins when they receive a list of upcoming vacancies for which they may compete  Foreign Service employees then submit a list of positions for which they would like to be considered, known as bids, to the Office of Career Development and Assignments and consult with their career development officer  The process varies depending on an officer’s grade and functional specialty, and State uses a variety of incentives to encourage Foreign Service employees to bid on difficult-to-fill posts  State groups countries of the world—and corresponding U S  overseas posts in these countries—into areas of responsibility under six geographic regional bureaus: Bureau of African Affairs Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Overseas posts report to State headquarters through their respective regional bureaus  For example, because the Bureau of African Affairs has responsibility for developing and managing U S  policy concerning parts of the African continent, U S  overseas posts in Nigeria report through the bureau to State headquarters  According to State officials, State maintains personnel data on State employees in its GEMS database  GEMS includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions; in particular, it shows the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions at State and whether each position is currently filled or vacant  As displayed in figure 1, the GEMS data show that the majority of Foreign Service employees (73 percent) work in positions at overseas posts  However, some Foreign Service staff (27 percent) are assigned to positions in the United States, where they may complete required language or other training, serve as desk officers for the regional bureaus, or work in other functions at State headquarters  According to State data, the number of both staffed and vacant overseas Foreign Service positions increased between 2008 and 2018  As shown in figure 2, the number of positions staffed grew from 6,979 in 2008 to 8,574 in 2018—a more than 20 percent increase  Despite the increase in the number of positions staffed, our analysis found that as of March 31, 2018, overall, 13 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant  This vacancy percentage is similar to the percentages of vacancies in overseas Foreign Service positions that we reported in 2012 and 2008  In 2012, we reported that 14 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of October 31, 2011, and we reported that the same percentage of overseas Foreign Service positions—14 percent—were vacant as of September 30, 2008  According to State officials, State’s ability to hire Foreign Service employees to fill persistent vacancies has been affected by factors such as reduced appropriations  For instance, according to State officials and State’s Five Year Workforce Plan, because of funding cuts enacted in fiscal year 2013, State could only hire one employee for every two leaving the Foreign Service  From fiscal years 2014 to 2016, funding for State’s annual appropriations supported hiring to replace Foreign Service employees projected to leave the agency, according to State officials  These officials indicated, however, that Foreign Service hiring was again impacted from January 2017 through May 2018 by a hiring freeze  As a result, State hired below levels required to replace full projected attrition of Foreign Service employees  While State’s data show persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts, specialist positions remain vacant at a higher rate  State’s data show that 12 percent (680 of 5,660) of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions were vacant as of March 31, 2018, a slight decrease from the 14 percent of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions that we reported vacant in 2012  State’s data also show that 14 2 percent (594 of 4,188) of all overseas Foreign Service specialist positions were vacant, close to the 14 8 percent vacancy rate that we reported in 2012  State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions responsible for analysis, engagement, and reporting at overseas posts  As shown in table 1, among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political, economic, and “other” tracks had the largest percentage of vacant positions, with, respectively, 20 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions vacant as of March 31, 2018  Our 2012 report noted vacancies in the same three career tracks  Political officers at overseas posts are responsible for collecting and analyzing information on political events, engaging with foreign governments, and reporting back to State headquarters  Economic officers at overseas posts work with foreign governments and other U S  agencies on technology, science, economic, trade, and environmental issues  The “other” generalist career track includes positions designated as “Executive” or “International Relations,” which, according to State officials, may be filled by generalists from any of State’s five career tracks  State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts  Among the 10 largest Foreign Service specialist skill groups, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions  As shown in figure 3, in these three groups, respectively, 16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions were vacant  The vacancies in these three specialist skill groups are persistent; in 2012, we reported that the same three groups had the largest numbers of vacant positions  Security officers are typically responsible for responding to various threats to the physical security of overseas posts and for ensuring the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff  Office management specialists provide professional management and administrative support  Information management staff are typically responsible for maintaining and ensuring the security of State’s computer networks and communications systems at overseas posts  State officials said that State has had difficulty in recruiting and hiring Foreign Service employees to fill specialist positions in some skill groups at overseas posts  According to State officials and staff at overseas posts, some vacant specialist positions are more difficult to fill than others because candidates for these positions must often possess skills in fields such as medicine or information technology that tend to be highly sought after in the private sector  According to staff at overseas posts, it is not uncommon for specialist candidates in these fields to choose higher- paying jobs in the private sector rather than specialist positions in the Foreign Service  Additionally, in some circumstances, State must compete with other federal agencies to recruit specialists from the same limited pool of talent  Consequently, according to State officials, State has been unable to attract and retain personnel with the skills necessary to fill some Foreign Service specialist positions, which has led to persistent vacancies in specialist positions  Vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts present additional challenges because specialized skills and competencies are often required to perform the work of these positions  According to State officials, because Foreign Service generalists may be assigned to work outside of their career tracks, in some circumstances, State has more flexibility in filling a generalist vacancy than a specialist vacancy  For example, generalists outside the consular career track can serve as a consular officer for one or more tours of duty  However, specialist positions often require specialized skills or experience that generalists may not possess  In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, it is generally not possible for a Foreign Service specialist from one skill group to perform the work of a Foreign Service specialist from a different skill group  For instance, a Foreign Service specialist assigned to the medical section at a post will not be able to help address the workload of a vacant position in the information management section  Thus, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in specialist positions at the posts may create greater challenges than vacancies in generalist positions  According to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts with State’s highest foreign policy priorities had the highest percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions  Using its Overseas Staffing Model process, State assigns each embassy to one of seven categories based primarily on the level and type of work required to pursue the U S  government’s diplomatic relations with the host country at post  As we previously reported, the rankings are closely associated with the department’s foreign policy priorities; the higher the category, the greater the resources needed to conduct the work of the overseas post and the higher the post’s foreign policy priority  For example, the highest-level category, level 5+, includes the largest, most comprehensive full-service posts, where the host country’s regional and global role requires extensive U S  personnel resources  The lowest-level category includes small embassies with limited requirements for advocacy, liaison, and coordination in the host country’s government  As shown in table 2, according to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts in the “Embassy 5+” category had the highest percentage of vacant positions  The results of this analysis were similar to those we reported in 2012  While State has Foreign Service vacancies worldwide, as of March 31, 2018, the highest percentages of vacancies were in the South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau (SCA) and Near Eastern Affairs Bureau (NEA)—bureaus representing regions with heightened security risks that could threaten U S  foreign policy interests, according to State  SCA, which includes countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, faces a host of security and stability challenges that could threaten U S  interests, according to a February 2018 report from State’s Office of Inspector General  NEA includes countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, which have faced numerous security threats in recent years that could also threaten U S  interests overseas  As shown in figure 4, among State’s regional bureaus, as of March 31, 2018, SCA and NEA had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies at 21 percent (238 of 1,115 positions) and 18 percent (234 of 1,279 positions), respectively  In 2012, we reported that these two bureaus also had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies among regional bureaus  Vacancies in Foreign Service positions at overseas posts increase workloads and adversely affect the morale of Foreign Service employees  According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, when a Foreign Service position at an overseas post is vacant, Foreign Service employees at that post are generally responsible for covering the workload of the vacant position  Further, Foreign Service employees at some posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service staff—may be responsible for covering the workload of multiple vacant positions  For example, at two African posts we heard examples of Foreign Service employees covering the workload of multiple vacant Foreign Service positions  As a result of increased workloads, Foreign Service employees are also more likely to have less time available to perform some important functions, according to staff at overseas posts  According to staff at overseas posts, such functions include training and supervising entry- level Foreign Service employees, local staff, and eligible family members (EFM); reducing the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse; improving and innovating processes at post that could reduce inefficiencies; initiating and implementing projects that could enhance various diplomatic efforts; and conducting maintenance of systems  In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies adversely affect staff morale  Staff at multiple posts said that vacancies and the resulting increased workloads had created substantial stress and increased “burnout” of Foreign Service employees at the posts  They noted that these levels of stress and burnout had contributed to Foreign Service employees’ ending their overseas assignments early for medical or personal reasons  These curtailments, in turn, had increased the overall vacancies and their effects at overseas posts  According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions at overseas posts adversely affect State’s diplomatic readiness  Among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political and economic career tracks had the two largest percentages of vacant positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018  According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in political and economic positions at overseas posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service employees—limit the amount of reporting on political and economic developments that posts are able to submit back to State headquarters  For example, Foreign Service employees from three posts in Africa told us that persistent, long-term vacancies in those posts’ political and economic positions had constrained their abilities to provide full reporting on political and economic developments in their host countries  According to staff at overseas posts, reporting on political and economic developments in other countries—submitted by overseas posts back to State headquarters—is essential for State to make informed foreign policy decisions  Foreign Service employees from two posts in large countries in East and South Asia also told us that vacancies in these sections had limited their capacity to engage with host government officials on important, strategic issues for the United States, such as reducing nuclear proliferation or enhancing trade and investment relationships with the United States  Vacancies in the political and economic career tracks at overseas posts could adversely affect State’s ability to achieve two of the goals in State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022—(1) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation and (2) promote American leadership through balanced engagement  According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts may heighten the level of security risk at the posts and disrupt post operations  Among Foreign Service specialist skill groups with the highest number of vacant positions, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions—16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018  According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in security officer positions at overseas posts reduce the amount of time that security staff can spend identifying, investigating, and responding to potential security threats to the post  Security officers are also responsible for identifying and analyzing host-country intelligence-gathering efforts at their respective overseas posts—and post staff told us that, because of vacancies in these positions, some security officers had been unable to complete this work for their posts, potentially increasing the risk of foreign government officials gaining access to sensitive information  Also, post staff told us that security officer vacancies limit the amount of time that security officers present at posts can devote to important security oversight activities, including regular training, drilling, and supervising of local guard forces and security contractors  Post staff noted, for example, that security officers at overseas posts should conduct regular training and drilling exercises to evaluate their local guard force’s effectiveness in searching a vehicle entering the post compound for explosive devices  According to post staff, when these important security oversight activities are not properly and regularly conducted, the level of security risk at these overseas posts may increase  According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, as well as reporting by State’s OIG, vacancies in information management positions at overseas posts have increased the vulnerability of posts’ computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats  State officials told us that the Foreign Service had faced chronic shortages of information management staff available to fill these positions worldwide  According to State officials, because of ongoing information management vacancies, some required tasks—such as conducting planned network maintenance—were performed infrequently or not at all  In another example, staff at overseas posts said that because of vacancies, information management staff had been unable to regularly check their computer system logs to ensure that security breaches had not taken place  Post staff added that, if a breach did occur, vacancies could increase the amount of time needed to identify an attack and deploy countermeasures, further increasing the risks to posts’ computer networks  Inspections conducted by State’s OIG from fall 2014 to spring 2016 found that information management staff at 33 percent of overseas posts had not performed various required information management duties  According to State’s OIG, neglect of these duties may leave the department vulnerable to increased cybersecurity attacks  According to staff at overseas posts, the office management specialist position at overseas posts has evolved considerably over time; these specialists increasingly play a critical role in ensuring that the work of overseas posts is effectively completed  Post staff said that office management specialists provide administrative and other support services to other Foreign Service employees and are assigned to various sections of post  For example, staff at one post noted that office management specialists assigned to the Security Officer sections at overseas posts reduce the workload of security officers by completing more routine security tasks and allowing the security officers to focus on more challenging or involved tasks necessary to secure overseas posts  Post staff told us that vacancies in office management specialist positions reduce the amount of work that can be completed by other Foreign Service employees at overseas posts  For example, when office management specialist positions assigned to the Security Officer or Information Management sections of posts are vacant, these vacancies further exacerbate the higher number of vacancies that already exist in these sections  According to staff at overseas posts, higher numbers of office management specialist vacancies require other Foreign Service employees to spend a significant amount of time on administrative tasks, reducing the amount of time these staff can spend on mission-critical activities  Officials in headquarters and at overseas posts described various State efforts to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies  According to State officials, Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts are a complex problem that multiple offices within State address on an individual basis  State’s various efforts to address overseas Foreign Service vacancies are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies  Our 2017 High-Risk Series report calls for agencies to, among other things, design and implement action plan strategies for closing skills gaps  The action plan should (1) define the root cause of all skills gaps within an agency and (2) provide suggested corrective measures, including steps necessary to implement solutions  This report also emphasizes the high risk that mission-critical skills gaps in the federal workforce pose to the nation  While various State offices have implemented the efforts we identified, State lacks an action plan that is integrated—or consolidated—across its relevant offices to guide its efforts to address persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies  Moreover, some staff at overseas posts acknowledged that the efforts State has taken to help address vacancies have not reduced persistent Foreign Service vacancies, notably in specialist positions  In response to our inquiry about an action plan, State officials said that the agency does not have a single document that addresses Foreign Service staffing gaps at overseas posts  Instead, State officials directed us to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020, stating that it was the most comprehensive document that outlines State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts  The workforce plan notes that it provides a framework to address State’s human capital requirements and highlights State’s challenges and achievements in recruiting, hiring, staffing, and training Foreign Service staff  However, in reviewing the portions of the workforce plan that State indicated were most relevant, we found that the workforce plan does not include an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of the persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies we identified or suggest corrective measures to reduce vacancies in these positions, including steps necessary to implement solutions  State officials also noted that they frequently meet to discuss and address workforce issues  For example, they said they convene a multi-bureau planning group that meets biweekly to discuss strategic workforce issues such as hiring needs based on attrition and other issues  However, according to State officials, this group has not developed an action plan to reduce persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts  State lacks an integrated action plan to guide its efforts to address persistent Foreign Service vacancies that includes corrective measures to address the root causes of the vacancies  Without defining the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and identifying appropriate corrective measures, overseas vacancies may persist and continue to adversely affect State’s ability to achieve U S  foreign policy goals  Foreign Service generalists and specialists at overseas posts are critical to advancing U S  foreign policy and economic interests abroad  However, for at least a decade, the Foreign Service has had persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts  In particular, large numbers of vacant positions have persisted over time in certain overseas Foreign Service positions, such as information management and security officer positions  These vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts have adversely affected State’s ability to carry out its mission effectively and threaten State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of its employees, their families, and post facilities  While State has made some efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies, addressing chronic vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts requires a thoughtful, coherent, and integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts along with suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, following what was called for in our 2017 High-Risk Series report  Developing such an action plan would help State address its persistent staffing gaps, improve its ability to achieve U S  foreign policy goals, and help ensure secure and efficient operations  The Secretary of State should develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and provides suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to State for review and comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, State concurred with our recommendation  State also noted that it has taken actions and identified some causes of vacancies, but acknowledged that it lacks an integrated action plan and will take steps to develop such a plan  State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  This report examines (1) vacancies in the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies  To address these three objectives, we interviewed State officials from the department’s Bureau of Human Resources and Bureau of Consular Affairs as well as State officials representing the Offices of the Executive Director for State’s six regional bureaus  We also interviewed staff at 10 overseas posts  We conducted in-person interviews with staff at 3 of these posts—the U S  Embassy in Beijing and the U S  Consulate in Shanghai, China, and the U S  Embassy in New Delhi, India  We conducted telephone interviews with staff at the other 7 posts—the U S  Embassies in Abuja, Nigeria; Bogota, Colombia; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kabul, Afghanistan; Mexico City, Mexico; and N’Djamena, Chad; and the U S  Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany  We used the following criteria to select overseas posts for interviews: (1) posts with larger numbers of Foreign Service vacancies; (2) posts with diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant; (3) posts with higher relative importance to U S  economic, national security, and other foreign policy interests; and (4) posts in a range of geographic locations by State region  To examine vacancies in State’s Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, we analyzed State’s personnel data on Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts from the department’s Global Employment Management System (GEMS), as of March 2018  Our analysis of the GEMS data includes Foreign Service positions filled by permanent Foreign Service employees as well as positions filled by nonpermanent Foreign Service employees, such as Consular Fellows  This analysis does not include the number of staffed and vacant positions at overseas posts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which, at the time of our review, were in suspended operations status, as well as U S  Mission Somalia, which was operating under special circumstances at a different location  To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by the number of positions listed as vacant in GEMS  For example, a post with 10 positions and 2 vacancies would have a vacancy rate of 20 percent  We calculated vacancy rates for each of the following categories: type (i e , generalist or specialist), function (e g , consular or information management), regional bureau (i e , Bureau of African Affairs or Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs), and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s Overseas Staffing Model (i e , Embassy 3+ or 5)  According to State officials, the data in GEMS have a number of limitations: The number of vacant positions at overseas posts listed in GEMS may be overstated, because State has not yet decided to remove some of these positions from its database  Some of the vacancies in GEMS are short-term or temporary  Foreign Service employees periodically rotate out of their positions at their overseas posts, sometimes creating temporary vacancies until the positions are filled by incoming Foreign Service employees  The GEMS data show larger numbers of vacant Foreign Service positions at posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan than actually were unstaffed at these posts  According to State officials, this discrepancy results from State’s relying heavily on shorter-term assignments to fill Foreign Service positions at these locations  These shorter-term assignments are not reflected in GEMS, and the positions therefore appear vacant  The GEMS data may not reflect Foreign Service employees who have been temporarily reassigned from one overseas post to another  The GEMS data may show positions as filled although the Foreign Service employee filling the position has not yet arrived at post  To assess the reliability of the GEMS database, we asked State officials whether State had made any major changes to the database since our 2012 report, when we assessed the GEMS data to be sufficiently reliable  State officials indicated that no major changes had been made  We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general accuracy of the data with officials at selected overseas posts, and interviewed knowledgeable officials from State’s Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis concerning the data’s reliability  We found the GEMS data to be reliable for the purpose of determining the numbers and percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions at overseas posts  We did not validate whether the total number of authorized overseas Foreign Service positions was appropriate or met State’s needs  We also reviewed State workforce planning documents and budget documents, such as State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020 and Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review  In addition, we reviewed State Office of Inspector General reports as well as our previous reports on human capital challenges at State and effective strategic human capital management across the federal government  In particular, our report High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others notes that strategic human capital management is a high-risk issue across the federal government and lists five key elements as a road map for agency efforts to improve and ultimately address such issues  For our third objective, we assessed whether State’s efforts to address vacancies were guided by a corrective action plan that identifies the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to March 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The “Economic” generalist career track includes positions from the “Science Officer” staffing skill group in the GEMS data  170 Foreign Service employees were not staffed to one of the six regional bureaus  In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant Director), Ian Ferguson (Analyst-in-Charge), Anthony Costulas, Natalia Pena, Debbie Chung, Chris Keblitis, Reid Lowe, Justin Fisher, and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  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 

ground_truth: The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin's water supplies. Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin's available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin's limited water supplies. River Management The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border). The Upper and Lower Basins each were allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) annually under the Colorado River Compact; an additional 1.5 MAF in annual flows was made available to Mexico under a 1944 treaty. Future agreements and court decisions addressed numerous other issues (including intrastate allocations of flows), and subsequent federal legislation provided authority and funding for federal facilities that allowed users to develop their allocations. A Supreme Court ruling also confirmed that Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior as the water master for the Lower Basin, a role in which the federal government manages the delivery of all water below Hoover Dam. Reclamation and basin stakeholders closely track the status of two large reservoirs—Lake Powell in the Upper Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin—as an indicator of basin storage conditions. Under recent guidelines, dam releases from these facilities are tied to specific water storage levels. For Lake Mead, the first tier of "shortage," under which Arizona's and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead's January 1 elevation is expected to fall below 1,075 feet above mean sea level. As of early 2019, Reclamation projected that there was a 69% chance of a shortage condition at Lake Mead in 2020; there was also a lesser chance of Lake Powell reaching critically low levels. Improved hydrology in early 2019 may decrease the chances of shortage in the immediate future. Drought Contingency Plans Despite previous efforts to alleviate future shortages, the basin's hydrological outlook has generally worsened in recent years. After several years of negotiations, in early 2019 Reclamation and the basin states transmitted to Congress additional plans to alleviate stress on basin water supplies. These plans, known as the drought contingency plans (DCPs) for the Upper and Lower Basins, were authorized by Congress in April 2019 in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act (P.L. 116-14). The DCPs among other things obligate Lower Basin states to additional water supply cutbacks at specified storage levels (i.e., cutbacks beyond previous curtailment plans), commit Reclamation to additional water conservation efforts, and coordinate Upper Basin operations to protect Lake Powell storage levels and hydropower generation. Congressional Role Congress plays a multifaceted role in federal management of the Colorado River basin. Congress funds and oversees management of basin facilities, including operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species. It has also enacted and continues to consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters and development of new water storage facilities in the basin. In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate water shortages and conserve basin water supplies and has enacted new authorities to combat drought and its effects on basin water users (i.e., the DCPs and other related efforts).