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



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

Report 1: The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to enhance small business access to capital; contracting programs to increase small business opportunities in securing federal contracts; direct loan programs for businesses, homeowners, and renters to assist their recovery from natural disasters; and small business management and technical assistance training programs to assist business formation and expansion  Congressional interest in these programs has increased in recent years, primarily because assisting small business is viewed as a means to enhance economic growth  The SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program has been operational since April 1971  It is designed to increase small business' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracting, by guaranteeing bid, performance, payment, and specified ancillary bonds "on contracts … for small and emerging contractors who cannot obtain bonding through regular commercial channels " The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6 5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  The $6 5 million limit is periodically adjusted for inflation  The SBA's guarantee currently ranges from 80% to 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs  In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 10,800 bid and final surety bonds (a payment bond, performance bond, or both a payment and performance bond) with a total contract value of nearly $6 5 billion  Although the surety industry does not report the total value of the bonds it issues each year, estimates based on the total amount of premiums collected by the private sector in recent years suggest that the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program represents, by design, a relatively small percentage of the market for surety bonds (from about 1 1% to 6 7% of the value of surety bonds issued by the private sector)  A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (that agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner  The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the contract's terms and conditions  If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed  The surety bond reduces the risk of contracting  Surety bonds are viewed as a means to encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and are considered to be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions  The four general types of surety bonds are bid bonds guarantee that the bidder on a contract will enter into the contract and furnish the required payment and performance bonds if awarded the contract, payment bonds guarantee that suppliers and subcontractors will be paid for work performed under the contract, performance bonds guarantee that the contractor will perform the contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, and ancillary bonds ensure completion of requirements outside of performance or payment, such as maintenance  Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for a federal contract because the federal government requires prime contractors, prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States, to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract, and in an amount the contracting officer considers adequate, to protect the government  Prime contractors are also required to post a payment bond with a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in carrying out the work provided for in the contract  Both bonds become legally binding upon award of the contract and their "penal amounts," or the maximum amount of the surety's obligation, must generally be 100% of the original contract price plus 100% of any price increases  Most state and local governments have adopted similar legislation, often called "Little Miller Acts," referencing the Miller Act of 1935 that established the federal requirement  Many private project owners also require contractors to furnish a surety bond before awarding them a contract  This report opens with an examination of the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program's legislative origin and provides a historical summary of the major issues that have influenced the program's development, including the decision to supplement the original Prior Approval Program with a Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program (PSB program) that initially provided SBA-approved sureties a lower guarantee rate (not to exceed 70%) than those participating in the Prior Approval Program (not to exceed 80% or 90%, depending on the size of the contract and the type of small business) in exchange for allowing preferred sureties to issue SBA-guaranteed bonds to small businesses without the SBA's prior approval; P L  114-92 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses; and the decision to increase the program's bond limit  It then examines the program's current eligibility standards and requirements, and provides performance statistics, including the number and amount of bond guarantees issued annually  In addition, it provides data concerning the number and amount of final bonds guaranteed from FY1971 through FY2017 (see Table A-1 ) and for bid and final bonds combined from FY2000 through FY2017 (see Table A-2 )  P L  91-609, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, authorized the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program  The act amended Title IV of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (P L  85-699, as amended) to provide the SBA authority to guarantee any surety against loss as the result of a breach of the terms of a bid bond, payment bond, or performance bond by a principal on any contract up to $500,000  The act specified that (1) the principal of the bond is a small business, (2) the bond is required as a condition of bidding on the contract or serving as a prime contractor or subcontractor on the project, (3) the small business is not able to obtain such bond on reasonable terms and conditions without the guarantee, (4) the SBA determines that there is a reasonable expectation that the small business will perform the covenants and conditions of the contract, (5) the contact meets SBA requirements concerning the feasibility of the contract being completed successfully and at a reasonable cost, and (6) the bond's terms and conditions are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation  The act also required that the SBA's guarantee not exceed 90% of the loss incurred by the surety in the event of a breach of the bond's terms and conditions by the small business  The SBA was authorized to finance the program through the Leasing Guarantee Revolving Loan Fund within the Department of the Treasury, which renamed that fund the Lease and Surety Bond Guarantee Revolving Fund  The act authorized the transfer of $5 million from the SBA's Business Loan and Investment Revolving Fund to the Lease and Surety Bond Guarantee Revolving Fund, raising that fund's capital to $10 million available without fiscal year limitation, to support both the lease guarantee program and the surety bond guarantee program  The act also recommended that the program be appropriated up to $1 5 million each fiscal year for three fiscal years after its date of enactment (December 31, 1970) if additional funding were needed to offset the program's expenses  The SBA was directed to administer the program "on a prudent and economically justifiable basis " It was authorized to offset the program's administrative costs by charging a uniform annual fee, subject to periodic review to ensure that the fee is the "lowest fee that experience under the program shows to be justified," and uniform fees for the processing of applications for guarantees  The SBA also was authorized to "obligate the surety to pay the Administration such portions of the bond fee as the Administration determines to be reasonable in light of the relative risks and costs involved " The program's sponsors argued in 1970 that "there is widespread evidence that a significant number of construction contracting organizations find varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining surety bonds" and that "the major share of these organizations are small businesses, and many of them are headed by minority groups " They argued that the Surety Bond Guarantee Program would "facilitate the entry and advancement of small and minority contractors in the construction business " At that time, witnesses at congressional hearings testified that surety bonds were not necessarily required for most private sector construction contracts, but they were required for most public sector construction contracts  The SBA implemented the program on a pilot basis on April 5, 1971, in Kansas City  The program later was expanded to Los Angeles and became nationwide on September 2, 1971  Initially, the SBA guaranteed 90% of the amount of all of the surety bonds in the program and charged sureties 10% of the bond premium paid to the surety company by the contractor  It also charged small business applicants for payment and performance bonds 0 2% of the contract price upon their obtaining the contract  It did not charge for the processing of bid bonds, rejected applications, or applications that did not result in a contract award  Contractors wishing to participate in the program were required to have less than $750,000 in gross annual receipts for the past fiscal year or to have averaged less than $750,000 in gross annual receipts over the past three fiscal years  This size standard was more stringent than for other SBA programs, and it was designed "to reach that segment of small business which was obviously intended to benefit from the legislation as evidenced by the limit of $500,000 on any one contract " Demand for the program exceeded the SBA's expectations  In 1971, the SBA estimated that it would guarantee about 8,000 contracts amounting to about $540 million from FY1972 through FY1974  Instead, it guaranteed 16,118 contracts amounting to nearly $1 1 billion (see Table A-1 in the Appendix)  Because the demand for the program exceeded expectations and the initial fees proved to be insufficient to recoup the program's expenses, in 1974, the SBA requested an additional $25 million for the program  The SBA argued that the additional funds were necessary to take into account the program's projected growth and to establish a reserve fund "to protect against having to suspend [the] program in the fact of more rapid growth than is projected " In response to the SBA's request for additional funding for the program, Congress held congressional hearings to reassess the need for the program and to explore options concerning how to finance the program's proposed expansion  The financing discussions focused on the relative merits of relying primarily on higher fees to increase the program's revenue, reductions in the guarantee percentage to reduce the program's expenses, or additional appropriations to finance the program's proposed expansion  Although the SBA has periodically increased the program's fees and later instituted a tiered system of guarantee percentages, historically, the SBA has tried to keep the program's fees as low as economically feasible and the guarantee percentage as high as economically feasible to encourage the program's use  As an SBA official testified before Congress in 1975: SBA's loss exposure could be reduced by a decrease in the guarantee extended to sureties from 90% to 80%  Before proceeding with this recommendation, a thorough analysis will have to be made of the adverse effect on the willingness of sureties to participate in the program which would result from the increase from 10% to 20% of the sureties' share of the loss potential  An increase in contractor's fees would obviously be beneficial to the operating income of the program, but would also increase the bids which small business-contractors would have to make, thus placing them at a competitive disadvantage with contractors with more ready access to bonding  Moreover, as mentioned previously, the SBA is required by statute to ensure that the fees are the lowest "that experience under the program shows to be justified " Determining the program's appropriate size became a recurring theme at congressional hearings, and continues to be of congressional interest today  For example, Congress has regularly requested testimony from representatives of the surety bond industry and various construction organizations concerning the extent to which the program is necessary to assist small businesses generally, and minority-owned small businesses in particular, in gaining access to surety bonds  Congress has also periodically asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the need for the SBA's surety bond guarantee program and to recommend ways to improve the program's management  That testimony and GAO's reports have supported a need for the program, but, as will be discussed, have had somewhat limited usefulness in helping Congress determine the program's appropriate size  In 1974, Congress responded to the SBA's request for additional funding by passing P L  93-386 , the Small Business Amendments of 1974  It established a separate Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund account (hereinafter Revolving Fund) within the Department of the Treasury to support the program  The act also increased the total contract amount that could be guaranteed to $1 million from $500,000 and recommended that the Revolving Fund receive $35 million in additional funding  The Ford Administration objected to providing additional appropriations for the Revolving Fund  Instead, the Administration recommended that the Revolving Fund receive a $20 million transfer from the SBA's Business Loan and Investment Revolving Fund  The transfer would provide the program access to additional capital without affecting the federal budget deficit  Congress approved the Administration's proposal  As shown in Table 1 , the Revolving Fund received $130 5 million in additional appropriations for FY1976 through FY1979 and continued to receive additional appropriations during the 1980s and 1990s  In addition, the program's bond limit was increased to $1 25 million from $1 million in 1986  As discussed below, the increased appropriations and bond limit were not sufficient to continue the program's growth  Instead, both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA began to slowly diminish  This general trend continued until the maximum individual surety contract amount was increased, first on a temporary basis by P L  111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and later, on a permanent statutory basis, by P L  112-239 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013  As shown in Table 1 , Congress did not appropriate funding for the Revolving Fund from FY2000 to FY2004, allowing the program to cover the cost of claim defaults through its reserve  Congress also increased the program's bond limit to $2 million from $1 25 million in 2000  Congress provided the Revolving Fund $2 9 million in FY2005, $2 86 million in FY2006, $2 86 million in FY2007, and $3 million in FY2008  During the 111 th Congress, P L  111-5 provided the Revolving Fund a separate appropriation of $15 million to support a temporary increase in the program's bond limit to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million was necessary, from $2 million  Those funds were in addition to the $2 million appropriation that had already been approved for FY2009  In FY2010, the Revolving Fund received $1 million  Congress has not approved appropriations for the Revolving Fund since then, noting that there have been sufficient funds in the program's reserve to cover the cost of anticipated claim defaults  As mentioned previously, the SBA relied primarily on increased appropriations to finance the program's expansion during the 1970s, but it also increased the program's fees charged to applicants and sureties  For example, in 1976, the SBA increased its fees to sureties to 20% from 10% of the bond premium, instituted a deductible clause on bond claims, and generally limited its approval for bid, participation, and performance bonds to $250,000 unless specified circumstances were met  In 1977, it increased the contractor applicant fee for payment and performance bonds to 0 5% from 0 2% of the contract price upon obtaining the contract  The program's current fee structure is discussed later in this report  Both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA increased relatively rapidly during the 1970s (see Table A-1 in the Appendix)  The number of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA increased from 1,339 in FY1972 to 20,095 in FY1979, and the amount guaranteed by the SBA increased from $94 4 million in FY1972 to $1 39 billion in FY1979  During the 1980s and 1990s, both the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA generally declined, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars  A review of congressional testimony during that period suggests that there was no single, discernible factor to account for the program's slow contraction  Because the demand for surety bonds tends to fluctuate with changes in the economy, the program might have been expected to contract somewhat during recessions, but the economy experienced periods of both economic growth and decline during the 1980s and 1990s  There also was no indication that the ability of small businesses to access surety bonds in the private marketplace without the SBA's assistance had materially improved, which, if that had been the case, might have contributed to the decline by reducing the number of small businesses applying for assistance  One possible contributing factor to the decline in SBA-guaranteed surety bonds during that period was the continuing reluctance of many surety companies to participate in the program, either because they did not view the program as particularly profitable or they "had developed alternative methods to the program, such as requiring collateral or funds controls and underwriting programs based in part on credit scores, in order to write small and emerging contractors " Another possible contributing factor was a change in the way the program was perceived by congressional leaders and their reluctance to provide additional resources to continue the program's expansion  During the 1970s, at congressional hearings, witnesses praised the program as a great success in helping small businesses access surety bonds and compete for government contracts  During the 1980s and 1990s, congressional hearings focused less on the program's successes and more on its shortcomings  For example, in 1982, the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business indicted that the program was subject to "the most insidious types of fraud," including "evidence of involvement of organized crime figures " In addition, reports by both GAO and the SBA's inspector general questioned the SBA's management of the program, arguing, among other things, that the SBA lacked useful underwriting guidelines for surety companies and adequate procedures for verifying applicants' information  During the 1980s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, 11,840 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging $1 0 billion  During the 1990s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, 5,859 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging $823 million  During the first decade of the 2000s, the SBA guaranteed, on average, about 1,802 final surety bonds each fiscal year, with the SBA's share of those bonds' value averaging about $385 million  Since then, as indicated in Table 2 and Table A-1 , the number and amount of final surety bonds guaranteed by the SBA has generally increased  This increase is likely due to generally improving economic conditions and the increase in 2013 of the maximum individual contract amount that could be guaranteed from $2 million to $6 5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  The surety bonding process begins when a contractor applies for a bond  As GAO has reported Surety companies are generally corporations that are licensed under various insurance laws and, under their charters, have legal power to act as a surety (making themselves responsible for another's obligations) for others  Most surety companies accept business only through independent agents and brokers  In screening a bond applicant, a surety attempts to measure the contractor's ability to undertake and complete the job  When the surety's evaluation of the contractor's acceptability to perform the contract is favorable, the surety underwrites the bond  If the surety does not provide a bond to the bond applicant, the appropriate forms are forwarded to SBA for consideration of a surety bond guarantee  Initially, the SBA surety guaranteed program's bonds were underwritten and issued by large, "standard" surety companies  However, these companies' participation in the program soon began to decline, reportedly because of the administrative burdens associated with the program, such as the SBA's requirement that sureties submit all bond applications to the SBA for review and approval  In addition, the administrative costs of dealing with relatively small bonds versus relatively large ones may have also played a role in the larger, standard surety companies leaving the program  As a congressional witness testified in 1976: You have a professional underwriter, who     is going to be asked to spend 3 or 4 days looking into a $25,000 first-time application  There are many expenses involved  That same underwriter could very easily be writing four or five bonds for $10 million for contractors that everyone knows can perform  And it becomes a matter of how much time and resources can the surety industry devote to this type of business  Another reason may have been the outbreak of the Israeli-Egyptian War in 1973, which was followed by a tripling of oil prices and double-digit inflation  This led to the failure of many smaller contracting companies  In response to the economic downturn, many surety companies enhanced their underwriting standards to protect themselves from rising defaults  As a result, many of the larger surety companies became increasingly reluctant to participate in a program in which the profit margins were relatively small given the required paperwork and the program's limitation on the bond amount, and when the risk of defaults was at a historically high level  As standard sureties left the program, "specialty" surety companies filled the void  Initially, specialty sureties devoted almost all their business exclusively to SBA-guaranteed surety bonds  These companies later expanded their business into offering other high-risk bonds not normally handled by standard sureties  Specialty sureties typically required the contractor to provide collateral for the projects they bonded, and, in most cases, charged higher premiums than standard sureties  In 1982, the SBA invited officials from the Surety Association of America, representing the standard surety companies, to recommend ways to encourage their participation in the program  As mentioned previously, at that time, some specialty surety companies had been accused of associating with organized crime and GAO and the SBA's inspector general had reported fraud and mismanagement in the program  This may help to explain why the SBA was interested in encouraging the larger, more established surety companies to return to the program  The SBA also hoped that greater participation by the larger sureties would lead to lower premiums for small business contractors  During this outreach period, standard surety companies indicated a willingness to increase their participation in the program if the SBA would create a second special program, similar to the SBA's 7(a) loan guarantee program's Preferred Lenders Program  Under the proposal, a surety meeting specified qualification standards would be designed as a "preferred surety" and would be allowed to issue SBA-guaranteed surety bonds prior to receiving the SBA's approval  To participate in the preferred program, the surety's underwriting and administrative standards and procedures would be pre-approved by the SBA, and the surety's decisions would be subject to regular, annual audits  In addition, the SBA's reporting and access to records requirements would be retained  As a measure of their confidence in their own underwriting standards and claims decisions, the standard surety firms indicated that they would accept a 70% guarantee against losses as opposed to the then-allowed 80% or 90% guarantee against losses, as long as firms would not be required to seek the SBA's prior approval for underwriting decisions, bond administration, and claims procedures  Congress subsequently authorized the proposed Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program in P L  100-590 , the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988 (Title II, the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program Act of 1988)  The program was initially authorized on a three-year trial basis, and it was provided permanent statutory authority by P L  108-447 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005  As discussed in " 114th Congress: Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Rates " below, P L  114-92 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, increased the SBA's guarantee for preferred sureties from not less than 70% to not less than 90% of losses  The SBA is authorized to guarantee surety bonds issued to contractors or subcontractors when the business, together with its affiliates, meets the SBA's size standard for the primary industry in which it is engaged; the bond is required; the applicant is not able to obtain such bond on reasonable terms and conditions without a guarantee; and there is a reasonable expectation that the applicant will perform the covenants and conditions of the contract, and the terms and conditions of the bond are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation  The applicant must also "possess good character and reputation," as demonstrated by (1) not being under indictment, being convicted of a felony, or having a final civil judgment stating that the applicant has committed a breach of trust or has violated a law or regulation protecting the integrity of business transactions or business relationships; (2) not having a regulatory authority revoke, cancel, or suspend a license held by the applicant, which is necessary to perform the contract; and (3) never having obtained a bond guarantee by fraud or material misrepresentation or failing to keep the surety informed of unbonded contracts or of a contract bonded by another surety  Applicants must also certify the percentage of work under the contract to be subcontracted  The SBA does not guarantee bonds for applicants that are primarily brokers or have effectively transferred control over the project to one or more subcontractors  Applicants must also certify that they are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from transactions with any federal department or agency  In addition, the SBA will not guarantee a bond issued by a particular surety if that surety, an affiliate of that surety, or a close relative or member of the household of that surety or affiliate owns, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the business applying for the guarantee  This conflict of interest prohibition also applies to ownership interests in any of the applicant's affiliates  As mentioned previously, the SBA guarantees contracts up to $6 5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  There is no limit to the number of bonds that can be guaranteed for any one contractor  The SBA guarantees up to 90% of the loss incurred and paid by a surety if the contract is $100,000 or less, or if the bond is issued on behalf of a socially and economically disadvantaged-owned and controlled small business, a qualified HUBZone small business, a veteran-owned and controlled small business, or a service-disabled veteran-owned and controlled small business  The guarantee rate is 80% if the contract is greater than $100,000, and the business is not owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, a qualified HUBZone small business, or a veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business  The SBA does not charge principals (small business applicants) application or bid bond guarantee fees  If the SBA guarantees a final bond, the principal must pay a contractor fee equal to a percentage of the contract amount, which is determined by the SBA and published in the Federal Register   The FY2019 contractor fee is 0 6% of the contract price for a final bond  The contractor fee is rounded to the nearest dollar, paid to the surety, and the surety remits the fee to the SBA  Sureties also charge principals a premium for issuing and servicing the bond  Sureties are not allowed to charge principals a premium that is more than the amount permitted under applicable state law  Premiums vary depending on the surety's assessment of the risk involved and job size; typically ranging from 1 5% to 3 0% of the contract amount  Sureties interested in participating in the Prior Approval Program or the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program (PSB program) must apply in writing to the SBA  Applicants must be a corporation listed by the U S  Treasury as eligible to issue bonds in connection with federal procurement contracts  The SBA considers several factors when evaluating sureties for the PSB program: the surety must have an underwriting limitation of at least $6 5 million on the Department of the Treasury's list of acceptable sureties; the surety must agree that it will neither charge a bond premium in excess of that authorized by the appropriate state insurance department nor impose any non-premium fee unless such fee is permitted by applicable state law and approved by the SBA; the surety's premium income from contract bonds guaranteed by any government agency (federal, state, or local) can account for no more than one-quarter of the surety's total contract bond premium income; and the surety must vest the underwriting authority for SBA guaranteed bonds to its own employees and final settlement authority for claims and recovery to employees in the surety's permanent claims department  The SBA also considers the surety's rating or ranking designation assigned by a recognized authority  Sureties participating in the PSB program are not eligible to participate in the Prior Approval Program  However, this prohibition does not apply to the surety's affiliates provided that the affiliate is not a participant in the PSB program, their affiliation has been fully disclosed to the SBA, and the affiliate has been approved to participate in the Prior Approval Program  Sureties in the Prior Approval Program must obtain the SBA's approval before issuing a guaranteed bond  Sureties in the PSB program may issue, monitor, and service SBA-guaranteed bonds without prior approval  However, these sureties must notify the SBA electronically of all bonds issued and, for final bonds, they must report and submit to the SBA on a monthly basis all contractor and surety fees that are due  These sureties are also subject to a periodic maximum guarantee authority amount set by the SBA  In addition, effective August 21, 2017, sureties are required, during their initial nine months in the PSB program, to obtain the SBA's prior written approval before executing a bond greater than $2 million  The SBA argued that it was in the taxpayer's interest to require newer sureties to "demonstrate an understanding of the program before being allowed to issue bonds larger than $2 million without SBA's oversight " The terms and conditions of the SBA's bond guarantee agreements with the surety, including the guarantee percentage, may vary from surety to surety, depending on past experience with the SBA  The SBA may take into consideration, among other things, the rating or ranking assigned to the surety by recognized authorities, the surety's loss rate, average contract amount, average bond penalty per guaranteed bond, and the ratio of bid bonds to final bonds, all in comparison with other sureties participating in the same SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program (Prior Approval or PSB programs)  Sureties are required, among other things, to evaluate the credit, capacity, and character of a principal using standards generally accepted by the surety industry and in accordance with the SBA's standard operating procedures on underwriting and the surety's principles and practices on unguaranteed bonds; reasonably expect that the principal will successfully perform the contract to be bonded; provide bond terms and conditions that are reasonable in light of the risks involved and the extent of the surety's participation; be satisfied as to the reasonableness of cost and the feasibility of successful completion of the contract; ensure that the principal remains viable and eligible for the program; monitor the principal's progress on guaranteed contracts; maintain documentation of job status requests; take all reasonable action to minimize risk of loss, including, but not limited to, obtaining from each principal a written indemnity agreement, secured by such collateral as the surety or the SBA finds appropriate, which covers actual losses under the contract and imminent breach payments; and in the case of loss, pursue all possible sources of salvage and recovery  Participating sureties are subject to audits by SBA-selected and -approved examiners  Prior Approval Program sureties are audited at least once each year and PSB sureties are audited at least once every three years  The SBA does not charge sureties (or small businesses) application or bid bond guarantee fees  It does require sureties to pay a guarantee fee on each SBA-guaranteed bond (other than bid bonds)  The surety fee, which is determined by the SBA and published in the Federal Register , is a percentage of the bond premium  The FY2019 surety fee is 20% of the bond premium that the surety charges the small business, rounded to the nearest dollar  The surety fee is due within 60 days after the SBA's approval of the prior approval payment or performance bond  The SBA does not receive any portion of a surety's non-premium charges  As shown in Table 2 , the number and amount of bid bonds guaranteed by the SBA has generally increased in recent years  For example, in FY2007, the SBA guaranteed 4,192 bid bonds totaling $1 7 billion  In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 7,354 bid bonds totaling $4 7 billion  Table 2 also shows that the number and amount of SBA-guaranteed final bonds declined somewhat from FY2007 through FY2009 (coinciding with the 2007-2009 recession), and has generally increased since then  Recent increases are likely due to generally improving economic conditions and legislation that temporarily ( P L  111-5 ) and then permanently ( P L  112-239 ) raised the program's maximum individual contract amount from $2 million to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  As shown in Table 3 , excluding program costs of about $4 million annually, the program has experienced a net positive cash flow in each of the past 12 fiscal years  There is about $97 million in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program Revolving Fund  Historically, the program's default rate has averaged about 3% to 5%  According to the SBA, on average, the default rate on larger contracts tends to be lower than for smaller contracts and the recovery rate for larger contract defaults tends to be greater than for smaller contract defaults  Currently, 28 sureties participate in the Prior Approval Program and 6 participate in the PSB program  Agents empowered to represent a participating surety company are located, or licensed, in all 50 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands  About 80% of the SBA's surety bonds are issued through the Prior Approval Program and 20% through the PSB program  P L  111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the program an additional appropriation of $15 million and temporarily increased, from February 17, 2009, through September 30, 2010, the maximum bond amount from $2 million to $5 million  The act also authorized the SBA to guarantee a bond of up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million was necessary  It also revised the program's size standard to "the size standard for the primary industry in which such business concern, and the affiliates of such business concern, is engaged, as determined by the Administrator in accordance with the North American Industry Classification System " The new size standard (e g , up to $36 5 million in average annual receipts over the previous three years for most heavy construction contractors, and up to $15 million in average annual receipts over the previous three years for specialty trade contractors) increased the number of businesses that qualified for the program  Using its rulemaking authority, the SBA made ARRA's temporary size standard permanent on August 11, 2010  Proponents argued that the increased bond limit and size were necessary to "ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees " They also argued that "in our current economic recession, small businesses are finding it even more difficult to secure the credit lines necessary to get bonds in the private sector " In their view, the temporary changes would create "significant opportunities to create jobs now in which small businesses will participate and be the driving engine for creation of new jobs in our country " There was no apparent organized opposition to these specific temporary changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee Program  However, there was opposition to ARRA's package of program enhancements for the SBA as a whole, which among other things, provided the SBA $730 million in additional funding, including $255 million for a temporary, two-year small business stabilization program to guarantee loans of $35,000 or less to small businesses for qualified debt consolidation, later named the America's Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan program and $375 million to temporarily subsidize fees for the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%  Instead of modifying the SBA's program requirements and increasing the SBA's appropriation, opponents advocated business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses, generate economic growth, and create jobs  On September 12, 2011, the Obama Administration advocated, as part of its proposed American Jobs Act, a temporary increase in the SBA surety bond limit to $5 million until the end of FY2012  The Administration argued that raising the program's bond limit "will make it easier for small businesses to take advantage of contracting opportunities generated by the American Jobs Act's proposed infrastructure investments " On December 7, 2012, the Administration also recommended, as part of its request for an additional $60 4 billion in federal resources to address damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, that the SBA surety bond limit be increased to $5 million to enable "more small businesses to participate in the recovery efforts " There were several legislative efforts during the 112 th Congress to increase the program's bond limit  S  1334 , the Expanding Opportunities for Main Street Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H R  2424 , would have reinstated and made permanent ARRA's higher limits (up to $5 million and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies in writing that a guarantee in excess of $5 million is necessary)  Neither of these bills was reported by a committee for consideration by the House or the Senate  S  1660 , the American Jobs Act of 2011, and its companion bill in the House, H R  12 , would have provided $3 million in additional funding to pay for the cost of temporarily increasing the program's bond limit to $5 million from $2 million until the end of FY2012  Cloture on a motion to proceed to S  1660 was not invoked in the Senate on October 11, 2011, by a vote of 50 to 49  H R  12 was not reported by a committee for consideration in the House  On December 12, 2012, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released its draft of the Hurricane Sandy Emergency Assistance Supplemental bill  It included a provision to increase the program's bond limit to $5 million  This provision was later removed following congressional approval of H R  4310 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which became law ( P L  112-239 ) on January 2, 2013  It increased the program's bond limit to $6 5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary  There was relatively little discussion in the legislative record concerning the reasons for increasing the surety bond program's bond limits, and even less discussion of the reasons for not increasing the limits  Hearings were not held on S  1334 and H R  2424   Also, only one witness during hearings on H R  4310 addressed the SBA surety bond program  That witness supported an increase in the surety bond limit to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a contracting officer certifies its necessity  Advocates argued that bond limits should be raised to bring them more in line with the contracting amounts for other small business programs, such as the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program, the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns Program  For example, under 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program, federal contracting officials, at that time, could provide a sole source award to a 8(a) small business if the anticipated award price of the contract did not exceed $6 5 million for manufacturing contracts (now $7 0 million) or $4 million for other contract opportunities, and the contracting officer believed that the award could be made at a fair and reasonable price  Advocates argued that raising the program's bond limit would provide more consistency across small business contracting programs and make it easier for agencies experiencing difficulty issuing contracts in increments of $2 million or less (e g , the Department of Defense [DOD], the General Services Administration, and the Department of State) to participate in the program  Advocates also argued that small businesses awarded contracts exceeding $2 million under the other small business contracting programs are at risk of not being able to complete those contracts due to difficulties in securing a surety bond  For example, the House Committee on Armed Services' Panel on Business Challenges in the Defense Industry argued that the SBA surety bond program's limit should be increased to $6 5 million to match the 8(a) program's $6 5 million threshold for manufacturing contracts and to "increase the opportunities for small businesses to compete for federal contracts, especially in those departments, such as the Department of Defense, where the average size of construction contracts awarded to small businesses for FY2010 exceeded $5 9 million—nearly triple the size for which SBA can provide bonding support " There was no organized opposition to raising the program's bond limits  One possible argument that could have been raised is that higher limits could lead to higher amounts being guaranteed by the SBA and, as a result, increase the risk of program losses  However, the SBA's experience with Recovery Act bonds (over $2 million) suggested that raising the limit may not lead to an increased risk of program losses  The SBA reported that the program's default rate on Recovery Act bonds was lower, in 2009 and 2010, than for its other bonds  The SBA guaranteed 166 Recovery Act bid bonds valued at $518 million and 52 Recovery Act final bonds valued at $145 4 million  There were two defaults, with a bond value of $2 7 million and $2 2 million, respectively  In an effort to enhance surety participation in the SBA's program, H R  776 , the Security in Bonding Act of 2013, introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Small Business on February 15, 2013, would have increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses  The bill was reported favorably by both committees on May 21, 2014, and included in H R  4435 , the Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which was passed by the House on May 22, 2014  This provision was not included in the final version of the bill which was subsequently passed by Congress  Advocates of increasing the PSB program's guarantee rate argued that Despite the different guarantee amounts and the differing levels of review, both the PAP [Prior Approval Program] and PSBP [Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program] have similar levels of default  However, over the years, the PSBP program has become less effective for small businesses since only four sureties currently participate in the program because the guarantee rates are no longer competitive enough to encourage commercial sureties to participate  Therefore, since the PSBP is the more efficient program and … does not expose taxpayers to any risk, this legislation amends the SBIA [Small Business Investment Act] to standardize the guarantee rate at 90 percent  The SBA did not formally endorse the proposed guarantee rate increase  However, in its FY2015 and FY2016 congressional budget justification documents, the SBA indicated that it "will investigate establishing a single guaranty percentage in the Prior Approval and PSB programs and restructuring the Prior Approval program " Also, when asked at a congressional hearing held on May 23, 2013, about the proposed guarantee rate increase, an SBA official testified that We are looking very closely at the program  We have seen a decline in the preferred sureties going down from 50% to 14% of our program, which is a very small number  We would like to see more participation in that program  Because of the additional cash flow we have, we do not expect it to increase our costs  And we have some history in our other programs that demonstrate that having the same guarantee level is not a disincentive  There was no discussion in the legislative record during the 113 th Congress opposing an increase in the guarantee rate for the PSB program  One possible objection might have been that increasing the guarantee rate could increase the risk of program losses and result in higher program fees  Higher fees, in turn, could cause hardship for some companies seeking a surety bond  H R  838 , the Security in Bonding Act of 2015, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Committee on Small Business on February 10, 2015  The bill would have increased the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90%, specify requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties, and require GAO to examine the effects of these changes on small businesses  The House-passed version of H R  1735 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, included H R  838 's provisions  The Senate-passed version of the bill did not  The conference agreement for H R  1735 , which became P L  114-92 , included H R  838 's provision to increase the PSB program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses and its provision to specify requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties, subject to a one-year delay "to allow for the necessary rulemaking " Congress specified additional requirements concerning the pledge of assets by individual sureties as a means to ensure that "individual sureties have sufficient assets to redeem the bonds " The SBA's final rule implementing the increased PSB program's guarantee rate was effective as of September 20, 2017  The SBA has reported that it is focusing on "strengthening relationships with individual surety companies and the large network of bond agents and producers across the country in order to reach more small businesses in need of bonding " As part of this outreach effort, the SBA has reported that it will continue to emphasize "process improvements that will streamline the application requirements for small businesses and surety companies and their agents " For example, in August 2012, the SBA announced a "Quick APP" for surety bonds up to $250,000 that provides a streamlined underwriting and application process by combining "two applications into one to make it easier and faster for small businesses and contractors, including veteran-owned small businesses, to compete for contracts " The SBA increased the Quick APP (now called the Quick Bond Program) eligibility threshold to $400,000 in 2017  In addition, the SBA reported in 2016 that it was also considering combing the Prior Approval Program and PSB program into a single program featuring the streamlined bond approval and monitoring processes under the PSB program  Several industry groups, including the National Association of Surety Bond Producers and The Surety & Fidelity Association of America, have recommended that the programs be merged, the emphasis on reduced regulatory burdens under the PSB program be maintained, and the program's fees kept as low as economically feasible as a means to encourage more sureties to participate in the program  Perhaps because the proposal has not been formally introduced as a bill, there are no public statements opposing the merger of the two programs  Opposition might come from (1) those who are not convinced that the Surety Bond Guarantee Program is necessary to supplement the private market for surety bonds and would prefer that the program be eliminated rather than reformed or (2) those who believe that a federal program is necessary to supplement the private market for surety bonds, but the existing program is sufficient to meet that need and does not require changes to encourage its expansion  Still other opponents might argue that providing additional authority to sureties to approve and monitor bonds could increase the risk of defaults and program losses  Throughout the program's history, both congressional testimony and GAO examinations have indicated that smaller contracting firms, and especially minority-owned and women-owned small business contracting firms, often have a more difficult time accessing surety bonds in the private marketplace than larger firms  For example, in 1995, GAO reported that "it is not unusual for a small construction company to have some difficulty in obtaining a surety bond " GAO found that about one in three of the smallest contracting firms it surveyed, compared with about one in six of the larger contracting firms it surveyed, reported that they were required to provide collateral  GAO also reported The experiences of the minority-owned firms differed from those of the firms not owned by minorities in several areas  For example, these firms were more likely to be asked to provide certain types of financial documentation, as well as to provide collateral or to meet other conditions; were more likely to be denied a bond and to report losing an opportunity to bid because of delays in processing their request for a bond; and were more likely to depend on jobs requiring bonds for a higher proportion of their revenues  The women-owned firms differed from the firms not owned by women in a few key respects  For example, they … were more likely to be asked to provide more types of financial or other documentation to obtain a bond  In addition, the minority-owned firms reported more often than the firms not owned by minorities that they had to (1) establish an escrow account controlled by the surety company, (2) hire a CPA or a management or consulting firm selected by the surety company to manage the contract, and (3) enter into an arrangement that allows the surety company to manage the job even when the firm is not in default  Although congressional testimony and GAO examinations have supported the need for a program such as the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, that testimony and GAO's surveys of businesses have been somewhat less useful in helping Congress determine the appropriate size for the program  For example, a review of congressional hearings since the program's inception suggests that congressional witnesses representing the surety companies and various construction organizations, including minority-owned small contracting businesses, have focused their testimony on the need to reduce the SBA's paperwork requirements, which are designed to prevent fraud but increase the sureties' costs; keep the program's fees as low as possible; and keep the program's guarantee rates as high as possible  The SBA's testimony has tended to focus on the need to attract more sureties to the program so that it can reverse the slow downward trajectory the program has experienced over the past two decades in the number and amount of final bonds guaranteed  There has been relatively little testimony provided concerning the broader issue of how large the program should be in comparison with the private sector and what measures or metrics could be used to help make that determination  One possible starting point for determining the program's size in comparison with the private sector is to examine congressional testimony concerning the supply and demand for sureties in the private sector  That testimony suggests that the supply and demand for sureties tends to fluctuate with changes in the overall economy, with the supply of sureties contracting during economic recessions and expanding during economic expansions and the demand for sureties slowing during economic recessions and increasing during economic expansions  Arguably, federal policies could take these fluctuations into account—enacting policies that expand federal support for surety guarantees when supply is tight and reducing federal support for surety guarantees when supply is more plentiful  Of course, when making these decisions, it is necessary to first establish measures or metrics to determine current market conditions  In addition, this line of reasoning assumes that having a federal presence in the surety marketplace is desirable, an assumption not held by all  Ultimately, although having established measures or metrics concerning the supply and demand for surety bonds might be helpful in determining the appropriate size for the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, that decision will largely rest on personal views concerning the role of the federal government in the private marketplace and the level of acceptable risk in assisting small businesses to gain greater access to surety bonds 


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

ground_truth: The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Surety Bond Guarantee Program is designed to increase small businesses' access to federal, state, and local government contracting, as well as private-sector contracts, by guaranteeing bid, performance, and payment bonds for small businesses that cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. The program guarantees individual contracts of up to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The SBA's guarantee currently ranges from 80% to 90% of the surety's loss if a default occurs. In FY2018, the SBA guaranteed 10,800 bid and final surety bonds with a total contract value of nearly $6.5 billion. A surety bond is a three-party instrument between a surety (who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner. The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed. Surety bonds encourage project owners to contract with small businesses that may not have the credit history or prior experience of larger businesses and may be at greater risk of failing to comply with the contract's terms and conditions. Surety bonds are important to small businesses interested in competing for federal contracts because the federal government requires prime contractors—prior to the award of a federal contract exceeding $150,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair of any building or public work of the United States—to furnish a performance bond issued by a surety satisfactory to the contracting officer in an amount that the officer considers adequate to protect the government. P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, increased the program's bond limit to $6.5 million, or up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certifies that such a guarantee is necessary. The limit had been $2 million since 2000, with a temporary increase from February 17, 2009, through September 30, 2010, to $5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified in writing that such a guarantee was necessary. Advocates of raising the program's bond limit argued that doing so would increase contracting opportunities for small businesses and bring the limit more in line with limits of other small business programs, such as the 8(a) Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program and the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. Opponents argued that raising the limit could lead to higher amounts being guaranteed by the SBA and, as a result, increase the risk of program losses. This report examines the program's origin and development, including (1) the decision to supplement the original Prior Approval Program with the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program that initially provided a lower guarantee rate (not to exceed 70%) than the Prior Approval Program (not to exceed 80% or 90%, depending on the size of the contract and the type of small business) in exchange for allowing preferred sureties to issue SBA-guaranteed surety bonds without the SBA's prior approval; (2) P.L. 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which increased the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program's guarantee rate from not to exceed 70% to not to exceed 90% of losses; and (3) the decision to increase the program's bond limit.

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



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

Report 1: The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) requires that private-sector firms provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees engaged in longshore, harbor, or other maritime occupations on or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States  Although the LHWCA program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), most benefits are paid either through private insurers or self-insured firms  The LHWCA is a workers' compensation system and not a federal benefits program  Like other workers' compensation systems in the United States, the LHWCA ensures that all covered workers are provided medical and disability benefits in the event they are injured or become ill in the course of their employment, and it provides benefits to the survivors of covered workers who die on the job  In 2016, the LHWCA paid approximately $1 41 billion in cash and medical benefits to injured workers and the families of deceased workers  Nearly all private- and public-sector workers in the United States are covered by some form of workers' compensation  The federal government has a limited role in workers' compensation and administers workers' compensation programs only for federal employees and several classes of private-sector workers, including longshore and harbor workers  For most occupations, workers' compensation is mandated by state laws and administered by state agencies  There is no federal mandate that states provide workers' compensation  However, every state and the District of Columbia has a workers' compensation system  There are no federal standards for state workers' compensation systems  However, all U S  workers' compensation systems provide for limited wage replacement and full medical benefits for workers who are injured or become ill as a result of their work and survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job  Workers' compensation in the United States is a no-fault system that pays workers for employment-related injuries or illnesses without considering the culpability of any one party  In exchange for this no-fault protection and the guarantee of benefits in the event of an employment-related injury, illness, or death, workers give up their rights to bring actions against employers in the civil court system and give up their rights to seek damages for injuries and illnesses, including pain and suffering, outside of those provided by the workers' compensation laws  Workers' compensation is mandatory in all states and the District of Columbia, with the exception of Texas  In Texas, employers may, under certain conditions, opt out of the workers' compensation system, but in doing so subject themselves to civil actions brought by injured employees  Prior to the enactment of the LHWCA in 1927, longshore and harbor workers were not covered by any workers' compensation system  Although persons who worked entirely on land were covered by workers' compensation laws in those states that enacted such laws, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1917 decision in Southern Pacific Co  v  Jensen , state workers' compensation systems did not have jurisdiction over persons working on the "navigable waters" of the United States because the Constitution granted the authority over "matters of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" to the federal government  The LHWCA created a federal workers' compensation program to cover these workers  In 1972, the LHWCA zone of coverage was extended to include areas adjacent to navigable waters that are used for loading, unloading, repairing, or building vessels  The LHWCA provisions apply to any private firm with any covered employees who work, full- or part-time, on the navigable waters of the United States, including in any of the following adjoining areas: piers; wharves; dry docks; terminals; building ways; marine railways; or other areas customarily used in the loading, unloading, repairing, or building of vessels  With the exception of workers excluded by statute (listed below), the LHWCA covers any maritime employee of a covered firm, including longshore workers (those who load and unload ships) and harbor workers (i e , ship repairmen, ship builders, and ship breakers)  Sections 2(3) and 3(b) of the LHWCA exclude the following workers from coverage: Workers covered by a state workers' compensation law, including employees exclusively engaged in clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work; persons employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, museum, or retail outlet; marina employees not engaged in the construction, replacement, or expansion of the marina; suppliers, transporters, and vendors doing business temporarily at the site of a covered employer; aquaculture workers; and employees who build any recreational vessel under 65 feet in length, or repair any recreational vessel, or dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of the vessel  Workers, whether covered or not covered by a state workers' compensation law, including masters and crew members of vessels; persons engaged by the master of a vessel to unload any vessel under 18 tons net; and employees of the federal government, or any state, local, or foreign government or any subdivision of such a government  Section 803 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) modified one of the excluded classes of workers under the LHWCA by adding additional exclusions for persons who work on recreational vessels over 65 feet in length  Prior to the amendment, Section 2(3)(F) of the LHWCA read as follows: (3) The term "employee" means…but such term does not include… (F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length  This section, as amended, reads as follows (with additions in italics): (3) The term "employee" means…but such term does not include… (F) individuals employed to build any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length, or individuals employed to repair any recreational vessel, or to dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of such vessel  By granting an exemption from the LHWCA to persons engaged in the repair of any recreation vessel, regardless of its size, this amendment limits the scope of the LHWCA and increases the types of workers excluded from coverage  In 2011, the DOL promulgated implementing regulations for the new recreational vessel provision provided by Section 803 of ARRA  These regulations provided definitions of recreational vessel for the purposes of the determination of LHWCA coverage  These definitions are based on the classification of vessels used by the U S  Coast Guard (USCG) and provided in statute and regulation  Specifically, under these current DOL regulations, a vessel is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is being manufactured or operated mainly for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to another person for his or her pleasure  In addition, for a vessel being built or repaired under warranty by its manufacturer or builder, the vessel is considered a recreational vessel if it appears based on its design and construction to be intended for recreational uses  The manufacturer or builder bears the burden under this regulation to establish that the vessel is a recreational vessel  For a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life (ship breaking), the vessel is not considered a recreational vessel if it was operating, more than infrequently, in one of the following categories provided in the U S  Code : "passenger vessel" (46 U S C  §2101(22)); "small passenger vessel" (46 U S C  §2101(35)); "uninspected passenger vessel" (46 U S C  §2101(42)); vessel routinely engaged in "commercial service" (46 U S C  §2101(5)); or vessel that routinely carries "passengers for hire" (46 U S C  §2101(21a))  A vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is a public vessel owned, or bareboat chartered, by the federal government or a state or local government and shares elements of design and construction with traditional recreational vessels and is not used for military or commercial purposes  Since the promulgation of the DOL's 2011 rules providing regulatory definitions of recreational vessels for the purposes of the LHWCA, numerous bills have been introduced that would, if enacted, remove the existing regulatory definitions for a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life so that the USCG categories of vessels provided in Section 2101 of Title 46 of the United States Code would no longer be used in the classification of such a vessel under the LHWCA  This legislation would expand the types of recreational vessels  Because persons who work on recreational vessels are not covered by the LHWCA, the legislation would allow employers to purchase workers' compensation for these workers under state laws rather than the LHWCA, which, due to the more generous benefits frequently offered by the LHWCA and the limited number of providers, may be more expensive  In the 115 th Congress, Section 3509 of H R  2810 , the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 (NDAA), as initially passed by the House of Representatives on July 14, 2017, contained this legislative provision  This provision was not included in the Senate version of the bill nor in the final NDAA enacted into law  The LHWCA has been amended four times to extend coverage to occupations outside the original scope of the law  In 1928, coverage was extended to employees of the District of Columbia   The provision was repealed, effective for all injuries occurring on or after July 26, 1982, with the enactment by the District of Columbia government of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1982  Benefits for injuries that occurred prior to July 26, 1982, continue to be paid under the LHWCA  Coverage was extended to overse a s military and public works contractors in 1941 with the enactment of the Defense Base Act


Report 2:  In 1952, coverage was extended to civilian employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the armed forces , such as service clubs and post exchanges  Coverage was extended in 1953 to employees working on the Outer Continental Shelf in the exploration and the development of natural resources , such as workers on offshore oil platforms  Employers required by the LHWCA to provide workers' compensation coverage to their employees may either purchase private insurance or self-insure  The DOL is responsible for authorizing insurance carriers to provide coverage under the LHWCA program and for authorizing companies to self-insure  However, the DOL does not set or regulate insurance premiums  These insurance arrangements are the primary means of providing LHWCA benefits to injured, sick, and deceased workers and their families  General revenue is not used to pay any LHWCA benefits  The DOL operates the Special Fund to provide LHWCA benefits in cases in which the responsible employer or insurance carrier cannot pay or in which benefits must be paid for a second injury under Section 8(f) of the LHWCA  The Special Fund is financed through an annual assessment charged to employers and insurance carriers based on the previous year's claims, payments required when an employee dies without any survivors, disability payments due to an employee without survivors after his or her death, and penalties and fines assessed for noncompliance with LHWCA program rules  The administrative costs associated with the LHWCA are largely provided by general revenue  General revenue is used to pay for most oversight functions associated with the LHWCA and the processing of LHWCA claims  General revenue is also used to pay legal and investigative costs associated with the DOL Office of the Solicitor and Office of the Inspector General  Revenue from the Special Fund is used to finance oversight activities related to the Special Fund and the program's vocational rehabilitation activities  In 2016, total administrative costs associated with the LHWCA were approximately $15 8 million, of which $13 6 million, or 86%, was paid by general revenue and $2 2 million, or 14%, was paid by the Special Fund  The LHWCA provides medical benefits for covered injuries and illnesses and disability benefits to partially cover wages lost due to covered injuries or illnesses, and it provides survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job  The LHWCA provides medical benefits to fully cover the cost of any medical treatment associated with a covered injury or illness  These medical benefits are provided without any deductibles, copayments, or costs paid by the injured worker  Prescription drugs and medical procedures are fully covered, as are costs associated with travelling to and from medical appointments  A covered worker may select his or her own treating physician, provided the physician has not been debarred from the LHWCA program for violating program rules  Covered workers are entitled to vocational rehabilitation services provided under the LHWCA  Vocational rehabilitation services are designed to assist the covered worker in returning to employment  There is no cost to the covered worker for vocational rehabilitation and workers actively participating in a rehabilitation program are entitled to an additional benefit of $25 per week  All costs associated with vocational rehabilitation under the LHWCA are paid out of the Special Fund  Vocational rehabilitation services may be provided by public or private rehabilitation agencies  The LHWCA provides disability benefits to covered workers to partially cover wages lost due to the inability to work because of a covered injury or illness  The amount of disability benefits is based on the worker's pre-disability wage, subject to maximum and minimum benefits based on the National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) as determined by the DOL  The NAWW is updated October 1 of each year and is based on average wages across the United States for the three calendar quarters ending on June 30 of that year  The minimum weekly benefit that can be paid to a covered employee is equal to 50% of the NAWW and the maximum weekly benefit that can be paid is equal to 200% of the NAWW  Disability benefits under the LHWCA, like all workers' compensation benefits, are not subject to federal income taxes  Unlike most state workers' compensation benefits, however, LHWCA benefits are adjusted based on wage inflation rather than price inflation  Benefits are adjusted annually each October 1 to reflect the change in the NAWW from the previous year, up to a maximum increase of 5%  The LHWCA provides benefits in cases of total disability  Under the LHWCA, a worker is considered totally disabled if he or she is unable to earn his or her pre-injury wage because of a covered injury or illness  In addition, a worker is also considered totally disabled if he or she loses both hands, arms, feet, legs, or eyes, or any two of these body systems, such as the loss of one arm and one leg  Total disability benefits under the LHWCA are equal to two-thirds of the covered worker's wage at the time of the injury or illness  Total disability benefits continue until the worker is no longer totally disabled or dies  If a covered worker is able to partially return to work or return to work at a wage level less than his or her wage at the time of injury, then he or she is considered partially disabled  In cases of temporary partial disability, the LHWCA benefit is equal to two-thirds of the difference between the workers' pre-injury wage and his or her current earning capacity or actual earnings  Section 8(c) of the LHWCA provides a schedule of benefits to be paid in cases of permanent partial disability (PPD), such as the loss of a limb  The benefit schedule provides the number of weeks of compensation, at two-thirds of the pre-injury wage, for each type of PPD  For example, the LHWCA schedule provides that a worker who loses an arm is entitled to 312 weeks of compensation  Benefits in cases not listed on the schedule are paid at two-thirds of the difference between the pre-injury wage and current earning capacity for the duration of the disability  Schedule benefits for PPD are paid regardless of the current work status or earnings capacity of the employee  Thus, an employee with a PPD can fully return to work and earn his or her wage in addition to the PPD compensation  A copy of the LHWCA PPD schedule can be found in the Appendix to this report  If a worker has an illness that was caused by his or her covered employment but did not manifest itself until after his or her retirement, then he or she is entitled to disability benefits equal to two-thirds of the NAWW multiplied by the percentage of his or her impairment  The percentage of impairment is determined using the current edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides ), or another professionally recognized source if the condition is not listed in the AMA Guides  The LHWCA provides cash benefits to the surviving spouses and minor children of workers killed on the job  Benefits for a surviving spouse end when the spouse remarries or dies and benefits for surviving children continue until the children reach the age of 18, age 23 if a full-time student, or for the life a child with a disability  A surviving spouse with no eligible children is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death under the LHWCA  A surviving spouse with one or more eligible children is entitled to two-thirds of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death  Once all children become ineligible for benefits because of their ages, the surviving spouse's benefit is reduced to the level of a spouse without any eligible children  If an eligible spouse becomes ineligible for benefits because of death or remarriage, or if there is no surviving spouse, benefits are still paid to any surviving children  Under the LHWCA, a single surviving eligible child is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death, and two or more surviving children are eligible for a combined two-thirds of the wage at the time of death  The survivors of a covered worker killed on the job are entitled under the LHWCA to a cash payment to provide for the burial and funeral of the deceased  The burial and funeral allowance is capped by Section 9(a) of the LHWCA at $3,000, and this cap not adjusted to reflect changes in prices or wages  If a covered worker who is receiving scheduled PPD benefits dies of a cause unrelated to his or her illness or injury, then the balance of any remaining PPD benefits is paid to his or her survivors  If a covered worker who dies on the job leaves no survivors, his or her employer or the employer's insurance carrier is required to pay $5,000 into the Special Fund  Although the responsibility for the payment of benefits under the LHWCA rests with the employer or the employer's insurance company, decisions on benefit eligibility and the amount of benefits are made by the DOL  Upon the report of an injury, illness, or death, the LHWCA claims process begins  If the employer or insurance carrier does not controvert the claim, then arrangements are made by the DOL for the claim to be paid  If, however, the employer controverts any part of the claim, then the DOL sets up an informal conference, either in person or by phone, between the employer or insurance carrier and worker with the goal of resolving any disputes over the claim  If this informal conference fails to resolve all outstanding disputes, then a formal hearing before a DOL administrative law judge (ALJ) is scheduled  If the employer or insurance carrier or the worker is dissatisfied with the decision of the ALJ, then this decision may be appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB)  The BRB is made up of five members appointed by the Secretary of Labor  Either party dissatisfied with the decision of the BRB may file a petition with the U S  Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred praying that the BRB's decision be set aside or modified  If an employer or insurance carrier fails to pay compensation in accordance with a final decision on a claim, the covered worker or the DOL may request that the U S  District Court order that payment be made 

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