document_title: List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign

question_text: who was the reigning monarch on christmas day c1760

root

text: Overall[edit]

text: These are the ten longest reigning monarchs in the British Isles for whom there is reliable recorded evidence.

tag: p

text:
No.

Monarch

Reign

Duration

From

To

Days

Years, days

1

 Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

6 February 1952

Present

24,370

7004243700000000000♠66 years, 263 days

2

 Victoria of the United Kingdom

20 June 1837

22 January 1901

23,226

63 years, 216 days

3

 George III of the United Kingdom

25 October 1760

29 January 1820

21,644

59 years, 96 days

4

 James VI of Scotland

24 July 1567

27 March 1625

21,066

57 years, 246 days

5

 Henry III of England

28 October 1216

16 November 1272

20,473

56 years, 19 days

6

 Edward III of England

25 January 1327

20 June 1377

18,410

50 years, 147 days

7

 William I of Scotland

9 December 1165

4 December 1214

17,892

48 years, 360 days

8

 Llywelyn of Gwynedd

1195

11 April 1240

16,173–16,902

c. 44–45 years

9

 Elizabeth I of England

17 November 1558

24 March 1603

16,198

44 years, 127 days

10

 David II of Scotland

7 June 1329

22 February 1371

15,235

41 years, 260 days

tag: table

text: The longest claim by a pretender was that of James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender"), who was the Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland for 64 years, 3 months, and 16 days (17 September 1701 – 1 January 1766).

text: Elizabeth II: the longest-reigning monarch[edit]

text: On 9 September 2015 (at the age of 89 years, 141 days), Elizabeth II became the longest-reigning British monarch and the longest-reigning female monarch in world history.[3][4] On 23 May 2016 (at the age of 90 years, 32 days), her reign surpassed the claimed reign of James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender").[5] On 13 October 2016 (at the age of 90 years, 175 days), she became the world's longest-reigning current monarch (and the world's longest-serving current head of state) after the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), King of Thailand.[6][7]

text: If she is still reigning on –

text:
18 July 2020 (at age 94 years, 88 days), she will have been queen for 25,000 days.[8]
6 February 2022 (at age 95 years, 291 days), she will celebrate her platinum jubilee, marking 70 years on the throne.[9]
27 May 2024 (at age 98 years, 36 days), she will surpass Louis XIV of France as the longest-reigning monarch of a major European country.[10]

tag: ul

text: Unitary monarchy[edit]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: On 1 January 1801 the Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, becoming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by Act of Parliament in 1927[11] following the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

Elizabeth II
6 February 1952
Present
24,370
7004243700000000000♠66 years, 263 days

Victoria
20 June 1837
22 January 1901
23,226
63 years, 216 days

George V
6 May 1910
20 January 1936
9,390
25 years, 259 days

George III [12]
1 January 1801
29 January 1820
6,967
19 years, 28 days

George VI
11 December 1936
6 February 1952
5,535
15 years, 57 days

George IV
29 January 1820
26 June 1830
3,801
10 years, 148 days

Edward VII
22 January 1901
6 May 1910
3,391
9 years, 104 days

William IV
26 June 1830
20 June 1837
2,551
6 years, 359 days

Edward VIII
20 January 1936
11 December 1936
326
326 days

text: Great Britain[edit]

text: On 1 May 1707, under the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England united with the Kingdom of Scotland as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

George III[12] (also United Kingdom)
25 October 1760
1 January 1801
14,677
40 years, 68 days

George II
22 June 1727N.S.
25 October 1760
12,168
33 years, 114 days

George I
1 August 1714
11 June 1727
4,697
12 years, 314 days

Anne[13]
1 May 1707
1 August 1714
2,649
7 years, 92 days

text: Kingdoms[edit]

text: England[edit]

text: Includes English monarchs from the installation of Alfred the Great as King of Wessex in 871 to Anne (House of Stuart) and the Acts of Union on 1 May 1707, when the crown became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

Henry III
28 October 1216
16 November 1272
20,473
56 years, 19 days

Edward III
25 January 1327
21 June 1377
18,410
50 years, 147 days

Elizabeth I
17 November 1558
24 March 1603
16,198
44 years, 127 days

Henry VI[14]
1 September 142231 October 1470
4 March 146111 April 1471
14,064162Total: 14,226
38 years, 184 days162 days38 years, 347 days

Æthelred II[14]
18 March 9783 February 1014
25 December 101323 April 1016
13,065810Total: 13,875
35 years, 282 days2 years, 80 days37 years, 362 days

Henry VIII
22 April 1509
28 January 1547
13,795
37 years, 281 days

Charles II[15]
30 January 1649
6 February 1685
13,156
36 years, 7 days

Henry I
5 August 1100
1 December 1135
12,901
35 years, 118 days

Henry II(co-ruler with Henry the Young King)
25 October 1154
6 July 1189
12,673
34 years, 254 days

Edward I
20 November 1272
7 July 1307
12,646
34 years, 229 days

Alfred the Great
24 April 871
26 October 899
10,412
28 years, 185 days

Edward the Elder
27 October 899
17 July 924
9,029
24 years, 264 days

Charles I[16]
27 March 1625
30 January 1649
8,710
23 years, 309 days

Henry VII
22 August 1485
21 April 1509
8,642
23 years, 242 days

Edward the Confessor
8 June 1042
5 January 1066
8,612
23 years, 211 days

Richard II
22 June 1377
29 September 1399
8,134
22 years, 99 days

James I[17]
24 March 1603
27 March 1625
8,039
22 years, 3 days

Edward IV[14]
4 March 146111 April 1471
3 October 14709 April 1483
3,5004,381Total: 7,881
9 years, 213 days11 years, 363 days21 years, 211 days

William I
12 December 1066
9 September 1087
7,563
20 years, 258 days

Edward II
8 July 1307
20 January 1327
7,136
19 years, 196 days

Cnut
30 November 1016
12 November 1035
6,921
18 years, 347 days

Stephen[14]
22 December 11351 November 1141
7 April 114125 October 1154
1,9334,741Total: 6,674
5 years, 106 days12 years, 358 days 18 years, 99 days

John
6 April 1199
19 October 1216
6,406
17 years, 196 days

Edgar I
1 October 959
8 July 975
5,759
15 years, 280 days

Æthelstan
2 August 924(or 925)
27 October 939
5,564 or  5,199
15 years, 86 daysor 14 years, 86 days

Henry IV
30 September 1399
20 March 1413
4,919
13 years, 171 days

William III[18](co-ruler with Mary II)
13 February 1689
8 March 1702
4,770
13 years, 23 days

Henry the Young King(co-ruler with Henry II)
14 June 1170
11 June 1183
4,745
12 years, 362 days

William II
26 September 1087
2 August 1100
4,693
12 years, 310 days

Richard I
6 July 1189
6 April 1199
3,561
9 years, 274 days

Eadred
26 May 946
23 November 955
3,468
9 years, 181 days

Henry V
21 March 1413
31 August 1422
3,450
9 years, 163 days

Edmund I
27 October 939
26 May 946
2,403
6 years, 211 days

Edward VI
28 January 1547
6 July 1553
2,351
6 years, 159 days

Mary II[19](co-ruler with William III)
13 February 1689
28 December 1694
2,144
5 years, 318 days

Mary I
19 July 1553
17 November 1558
1,947
5 years, 121 days

Anne[13] (also Kingdom of Great Britain)
8 March 1702
30 April 1707
1,879
5 years, 53 days

Eadwig
23 November 955
1 October 959
1,408
3 years, 312 days

James II[20]
6 February 1685
11 December 1688
1,404
3 years, 309 days

Edward the Martyr
9 July 975
18 March 978
984
2 years, 253 days

Harold I
12 November 1037
17 March 1040
856
2 years, 126 days

Harthacnut
17 March 1040
8 June 1042
813
2 years, 83 days

Richard III
26 June 1483
22 August 1485
788
2 years, 57 days

Harold II
5 January 1066
14 October 1066
282
282 days

Edmund II
23 April 1016
30 November 1016
221
221 days

Matilda (disputed)
7 April 1141
1 November 1141
208
208 days

Edward V
9 April 1483
26 June 1483
78
78 days

Edgar II
15 October 1066
17 December 1066
63
63 days

Sweyn Forkbeard
25 December 1013
3 February 1014
40
40 days

Jane (disputed)
10 July 1553
19 July 1553
9
9 days

text: Scotland[edit]

text: Includes Scottish monarchs from the installation of Kenneth I (House of Alpin) in 848 to Anne (House of Stuart) and the Acts of Union on 1 May 1707, when the crown became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

James VI[17]
24 July 1567
27 March 1625
21,066
57 years, 246 days

William I
9 December 1165
4 December 1214
17,892
48 years, 360 days

Constantine II
900
943
c. 15,500
c. 43 years

David II
7 June 1329
22 February 1371
15,235
41 years, 260 days

Alexander III
6 July 1249
19 March 1286
13,405
36 years, 256 days

Malcolm III
17 March 1058
13 November 1093
13,025
35 years, 241 days

Alexander II
4 December 1214
6 July 1249
12,633
34 years, 214 days

James I
4 April 1406
21 February 1437
11,281
30 years, 323 days

Malcolm II
25 March 1005
25 November 1034
10,837
29 years, 245 days

James V
9 September 1513
14 December 1542
10,688
29 years, 96 days

David I
23 April 1124
24 May 1153
10,623
29 years, 31 days

James III
3 August 1460
11 June 1488
10,174
27 years, 313 days

Charles II[15]
30 January 164929 May 1660
3 September 16516 February 1685
9469,019Total: 9,965
2 years, 216 days24 years, 253 days27 years, 104 days

James IV
11 June 1488
9 September 1513
9,220
25 years, 90 days

Mary I
14 December 1542
24 July 1567
8,988
24 years, 222 days

Charles I[16]
27 March 1625
30 January 1649
8,710
23 years, 309 days

Kenneth II
971
995
c. 8,700
c. 23-24 years

James II
21 February 1437
3 August 1460
8,564
23 years, 164 days

Robert I
25 March 1306
7 June 1329
8,475
23 years, 74 days

Robert II
22 February 1371
19 April 1390
6,996
19 years, 56 days

Alexander I
8 January 1107
23 April 1124
6,315
17 years, 106 days

Macbeth
14 August 1040
15 August 1057
6,210
17 years, 1 day

Robert III
19 April 1390
4 April 1406
5,828
15 years, 350 days

Constantine I
862
877
c. 5,400
c. 15 years

Kenneth MacAlpin
843
13 February 858
c. 5,100
c. 14 years

William II[18]
11 May 1689
8 March 1702
4,683
12 years, 301 days

Malcolm IV
24 May 1153
9 December 1165
4,582
12 years, 199 days

Giric(co-ruler with Eochaid?)
878
889
c. 4.000
c. 11 years

Donald II
889
900
c. 4,000
c. 11 years

Malcolm I
943
954
c. 3,600
c. 10-11 years

Edgar
1097
8 January 1107
c. 3,600
c. 10 years

Kenneth III
997
25 March 1005
c. 2,900
c. 8 years

Indulf
954
962
c. 2,700
c. 8 years

Duncan I
25 November 1034
14 August 1040
2,089
5 years, 263 days

Mary II[19]
11 April 1689
28 December 1694
2,087
5 years, 261 days

Amlaíb
971
977
c. 2,000
c. 5-6 years

Anne[13] (also Kingdom of Great Britain)
8 March 1702
30 April 1707
1,879
5 years, 53 days

Dub
962
c. 966-967
c. 1,800
c. 5 years

Cuilén
c. 966-967
971
c. 1,800
c. 5 years

Domnall mac Ailpín
858
13 April 862
c. 1.300
c. 4 years

James VII[21]
6 February 1685
11 December 1688(claimed until 16 September 1701.)
1,404(claimed 6,065.)
3 years, 309 daysclaimed 16 years, 222 days

Margaret
25 November 1286
26 September 1290
1,401
3 years, 305 days

John Balliol
17 November 1292
10 July 1296
1,331
3 years, 236 days

Donald III
13 November 1093
1097
c. 1,000
c. 3-4 years

Constantine III
1095
1097
c. 700
c. 2 years

Áed mac Cináeda
877
878
c. 365
c. 1 year

Lulach
15 August 1057
17 March 1058
212
212 days

Duncan II
May 1094
12 November 1094
c. 195
"less than 7 months"

text: Ireland[edit]

text: The High King of Ireland (846–1198) was primarily a titular title (with the exception of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair who was regarded as the first "King of Ireland"). The later Kingdom of Ireland (1542–1800) came into being under the Crown of Ireland Act 1542, the long title of which was "An Act that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland". In 1801 the Irish crown became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2018)

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair
1166
1193

c. 26-27 years

Edward Bruce (disputed)
June 1315
14 October 1318

c. 3 years, 100 days

Brian Ua Néill (disputed)
1258
1260

c. 1-2 years

text: Principalities[edit]

text: Gwynedd[edit]

text: The Principality (or Kingdom) of Gwynedd (5th century–1216) was based in northwest Wales, its rulers were repeatedly acclaimed as "King of the Britons" before losing their power in civil wars or Saxon and Norman invasions. In 1216 it was superseded by the title Principality of Wales, although the new title was not first used until the 1240s.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

Gruffudd ap Cynan
1081
1137

c. 55-56 years

Llywelyn the Great
1195
11 April 1240
>16,172
c. 44-45 years

Owain Gwynedd
1137
1170
>11,688
c. 33 years

Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd
1170
1195
>8,766
c. 25 years

Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd
1170
1170

<1 year

text: Wales[edit]

text: The Principality of Wales (1216–1542) was a client state of England for much of its history, except for brief periods when it was de facto independent under a Welsh Prince of Wales (see House of Aberffraw). From 1301 it was first used as a title of the English (and later British) heir apparent. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 formally incorporated all of Wales within the Kingdom of England.

text:
Name
Reign
Duration

From
To
(days)
(years, days)

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd
1253
11 December 1282
>10,572
c. 29 years

Owain Glyndŵr (disputed)
16 September 1400
c. 1416
>5,585
c. 16 years

Owain Goch ap Gruffydd
25 February 1246
1255
>3,000
c. 9 years

Owain Lawgoch (disputed)
May 1372
July 1378
>2,221
c. 6 years

Dafydd ap Llywelyn
12 April 1240
25 February 1246
2,145
5 years, 319 days

Dafydd ap Gruffydd
11 December 1282
3 October 1283
296
296 days

text: Charles, Prince of Wales, is the longest-serving Prince of Wales, with a tenure of 7004220080000000000♠60 years, 93 days since his proclamation as such in 1958.


document_title: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

question_text: who is the second ranking leader in the house

question_tokens: who is the second ranking leader in the house

text: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

text: Job description[edit]

text:
This article is part of a series on the

United States House
of Representatives

History of the United States
House of Representatives

Members

Current members

(by seniority
by age
non-voting)

Former members

Hill committees

(DCCC
NRCC)

Congressional districts

Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives (list)

Party leaders
Democratic Caucus
Republican Conference

Politics and procedure

Committee of the Whole

Closed session (list)
Saxbe fix

Committees (list)
Procedures

Origination Clause
Quorum call

Unanimous consent
Salaries

Apportionment (Huntington–Hill method)

Redistricting
Gerrymandering

Articles of impeachment

Self-executing rule
Rules suspension

General ticket
Plural district

Places

United States Capitol

House office buildings

(Cannon
Ford
Longworth
Rayburn)

v
t
e

text: Unlike in Westminster style legislatures or as with the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader's duties and prominence vary depending upon the style and power of the Speaker of the House. Typically, the Speaker does not participate in debate and rarely votes on the floor. In some cases, Majority Leaders have been more influential than the Speaker; notably Tom DeLay who was more prominent than Speaker Dennis Hastert. In addition, Speaker Newt Gingrich delegated to Dick Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor.[2]

text: The current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of the United States House of Representatives serves as floor leader of the opposition party, and is the counterpart to the Majority Leader. Unlike the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader is on the ballot for Speaker of the House during the convening of the Congress. If the Minority Leader's party takes control of the House, and the party officers are all re-elected to their seats, the Minority Leader is usually the party's top choice for Speaker for the next Congress, while the Minority Whip is typically in line to become Majority Leader. The Minority Leader usually meets with the Majority Leader and the Speaker to discuss agreements on controversial issues.

text: The Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip and Minority Whip all receive special office suites in the United States Capitol.

text: Selection[edit]

text: The floor leaders and whips of each party are elected by their respective parties in a closed-door caucus by secret ballot.[3] The Speaker-elect is also chosen in a closed-door session although they are formally installed in their position by a public vote when Congress reconvenes.[1]

text: Like the Speaker of the House, the Minority Leaders are typically experienced lawmakers when they win election to this position. When Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, became Minority Leader in the 108th Congress, she had served in the House nearly 20 years and had served as minority whip in the 107th Congress. When her predecessor, Richard Gephardt, D-MO, became minority leader in the 104th House, he had been in the House for almost 20 years, had served as chairman of the Democratic Caucus for four years, had been a 1988 presidential candidate, and had been majority leader from June 1989 until Republicans captured control of the House in the November 1994 elections. Gephardt's predecessor in the minority leadership position was Robert Michel, R-IL, who became GOP Leader in 1981 after spending 24 years in the House. Michel's predecessor, Republican John Rhodes of Arizona, was elected Minority Leader in 1973 after 20 years of House service.

text: By contrast, party leaders of the United States Senate have often ascended to their position despite relatively few years of experience in that chamber,[citation needed] such as Lyndon B. Johnson, William F. Knowland, and Bill Frist. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also had a comparatively quick rise to the post and was the youngest House Majority Leader in American history.[citation needed]

text: Duties[edit]

text: The House Majority Leader's duties vary, depending upon the political makeup of the majority caucus. In several recent sessions of Congress with the notable exception of the Pelosi speakership, the Majority Leader has been primarily responsible for scheduling the House floor's legislative calendar and direct management for all House committees.

text: One statutory duty, per 19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1), stipulates that an implementing bill submitted by the President of the United States for a fast-track negotiating authority (trade promotion authority) trade agreement must be introduced (by request) in the House by the Majority Leader of the House.

text: History[edit]

text: Before 1899, the majority party floor leader had traditionally been the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee in the House, as it generates the Bills of Revenue specified in the Constitution as the House's unique power.[4]

text: The office of Majority Leader was created in 1899 and first occupied by Sereno Payne.[5] Speaker David B. Henderson created the position to establish a party leader on the House floor separate from the Speaker, as the role of Speaker had become more prominent, and the size of the House had grown from 105 at the beginning of the century to 356.[citation needed]

text: Starting with Republican Nicholas Longworth in 1925, and continued through the Democrats' control of the House from 1931 to 1995, save for Republican majorities in 1947–49 and 1953–55, all majority leaders have directly ascended to the Speakership brought upon by the retirement of the incumbent. The only exceptions during this period were Charles A. Halleck who became Republican House leader and Minority Leader from 1959 to 1965, Hale Boggs who died in a plane crash, and Dick Gephardt who became the Democrats' House leader but as Minority Leader since his party lost control in the 1994 midterm elections. Since 1995, the only Majority Leader to become Speaker is John Boehner, though indirectly as his party lost control in the 2006 midterms elections. He subsequently served as Republican House leader and Minority Leader from 2007 to 2011 and then was elected Speaker when the House reconvened in 2011. In 1998, with Speaker Newt Gingrich announcing his resignation, both Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay did not contest the Speakership which eventually went to Chief Deputy Whip Dennis Hastert.

text: Traditionally, the Speaker is reckoned as the leader of the majority party in the House, with the Majority Leader as second-in-command. For instance, when the Republicans gained the majority in the House after the 2010 elections, Eric Cantor succeeded Boehner as Majority Leader. Despite this, Cantor and his successor, Kevin McCarthy, have been reckoned as the second-ranking Republicans in the House, since Boehner is still reckoned as the leader of the House Republicans. However, there have been some exceptions. The most recent exception to this rule came when Majority Leader Tom DeLay generally overshadowed Speaker Dennis Hastert from 2003 to 2006.[6] In contrast, the Minority Leader is the undisputed leader of the minority party.

text: When the Presidency and both Houses of Congress are controlled by one party, the Speaker normally takes a low profile and defers to the President.[citation needed] For that situation the House Minority Leader can play the role of a de facto "leader of the opposition", often more so than the Senate Minority Leader, due to the more partisan nature of the House and the greater role of leadership.

text: When the Majority Leader's party loses control of the House, and if the Speaker and Majority Leader both remain in the leadership hierarchy, convention suggests that they would become the Minority Leader and Minority Whip, respectively. As the minority party has one less leadership position after losing the speaker's chair, there may be a contest for the remaining leadership positions. Nancy Pelosi is the most recent example of an outgoing Speaker seeking the Minority Leader post to retain the House party leadership, as the Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 elections. She ran successfully for Minority Leader in the 112th Congress.[7][8]

text: In 2014, Eric Cantor became the first House Majority Leader to lose a primary election. Following his primary defeat, Cantor announced his resignation as Majority Leader, effective July 31, 2014,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and he subsequently resigned his seat in Congress.[15]

text: Minority Leader[edit]

text: This article is written like a manual or guidebook. Please help rewrite this article from a descriptive, neutral point of view, and remove advice or instruction. (November 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Responsibilities[edit]

text: From an institutional perspective, the rules of the House assign a number of specific responsibilities to the minority leader. For example, Rule XII, clause 6, grant the minority leader (or their designee) the right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions; Rule II, clause 6, states the Inspector General shall be appointed by joint recommendation of the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader; and Rule XV, clause 6, provides that the Speaker, after consultation with the minority leader, may place legislation on the Corrections Calendar. The minority leader also has other institutional duties, such as appointing individuals to certain federal entities.

text: From a party perspective, the minority leader has a wide range of partisan assignments, all geared toward retaking majority control of the House. Five principal party activities direct the work of the minority leader.

text:
The minority leader provides campaign assistance to party incumbents and challengers.
The minority leader devises strategies, in consultation with other partisan colleagues, that advance party objectives. For example, by stalling action on the majority party's agenda, the minority leader may be able to launch a campaign against a "do-nothing Congress."
The minority leader works to promote and publicize the party's agenda.
The minority leader, if their party controls the White House, confers regularly with the President and the President's aides about issues before Congress, the Administration's agenda, and political events generally.
The minority leader strives to promote party harmony so as to maximize the chances for legislative and political success.

tag: ol

text: The roles and responsibilities of the minority leader are not well-defined. To a large extent, the functions of the minority leader are defined by tradition and custom. A minority leader from 1931 to 1939, Representative Bertrand Snell, R-N.Y., provided this "job description": "He is spokesman for his party and enunciates its policies. He is required to be alert and vigilant in defense of the minority's rights. It is his function and duty to criticize constructively the policies and programs of the majority, and to this end employ parliamentary tactics and give close attention to all proposed legislation."[16]

text: Since Snell's description, other responsibilities have been added to the job. These duties involve an array of institutional and party functions. Before examining the institutional and party assignments of the minority leader, it is worth highlighting the historical origin of this position.

text: Origin of the post[edit]

text:
This article is part of a series on the

Politics of the
United States of America

Federal Government[show]

Constitution of the United States

Law
Taxation

Legislature[show]

United States Congress

House of Representatives

Speaker Paul Ryan (R)

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)

Congressional districts

United States Senate

President Mike Pence (R)

President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch (R)

President Pro Tempore Emeritus Patrick Leahy (D)

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D)

Executive[show]

President of the United States

Donald Trump (R)

Vice President of the United States

Mike Pence (R)

Cabinet
Federal agencies
Executive Office

Judiciary[show]

Supreme Court of the United States

Chief Justice John Roberts

Kennedy
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch

Courts of Appeals
District Courts (list)

Other tribunals

Elections[show]

Presidential elections
Midterm elections

Off-year elections

Political parties[show]

Democratic
Republican

Third parties

Federalism[show]

State Government

Governors

Legislatures (List)

State courts

Local government

Other countries
Atlas

v
t
e

text: To a large extent, the minority leader's position is a 20th-century innovation. Prior to this time congressional parties were often relatively disorganized, so it was not always evident who functioned as the opposition floor leader. Decades went by before anything like the modern two-party congressional system emerged on Capitol Hill with official titles for those who were its official leaders. However, from the beginning days of Congress, various House members intermittently assumed the role of "opposition leader." Some scholars suggest that Representative James Madison of Virginia informally functioned as the first "minority leader" because in the First Congress he led the opposition to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies.[17]

text: During this early period, it was more usual that neither major party grouping (Federalists and Democratic-Republicans) had an official leader. In 1813, for instance, a scholar recounts that the Federalist minority of 36 Members needed a committee of 13 "to represent a party comprising a distinct minority" and "to coordinate the actions of men who were already partisans in the same cause."[18] In 1828, a foreign observer of the House offered this perspective on the absence of formal party leadership on Capitol Hill:

text: Internal party disunity compounded the difficulty of identifying lawmakers who might have informally functioned as a minority leader. For instance, "seven of the fourteen speakership elections from 1834 through 1859 had at least twenty different candidates in the field. Thirty-six competed in 1839, ninety-seven in 1849, ninety-one in 1859, and 138 in 1855."[20] With so many candidates competing for the speakership, it is not at all clear that one of the defeated lawmakers then assumed the mantle of "minority leader." The Democratic minority from 1861 to 1875 was so completely disorganized that they did not "nominate a candidate for Speaker in two of these seven Congresses and nominated no man more than once in the other five. The defeated candidates were not automatically looked to for leadership."[21]

text: In the judgment of political scientist Randall Ripley, since 1883 "the candidate for Speaker nominated by the minority party has clearly been the Minority Leader."[22] However, this assertion is subject to dispute. On December 3, 1883, the House elected Democrat John G. Carlisle of Kentucky as Speaker. Republicans placed in nomination for the speakership J. Warren Keifer of Ohio, who was Speaker the previous Congress.[23] Clearly, Keifer was not the Republicans' minority leader. He was a discredited leader in part because as Speaker he arbitrarily handed out "choice jobs to close relatives ... all at handsome salaries."[24] Keifer received "the empty honor of the minority nomination. But with it came a sting -- for while this naturally involves the floor leadership, he was deserted by his [partisan] associates and his career as a national figure terminated ingloriously."[25] Representative Thomas Reed, R-ME, who later became Speaker, assumed the de facto role of minority floor leader in Keifer's stead. "[A]lthough Keifer was the minority's candidate for Speaker, Reed became its acknowledged leader, and ever after, so long as he served in the House, remained the most conspicuous member of his party.[26]

text: Another scholar contends that the minority leader position emerged even before 1883. On the Democratic side, "there were serious caucus fights for the minority speakership nomination in 1871 and 1873," indicating that the "nomination carried with it some vestige of leadership."[27] Further, when Republicans were in the minority, the party nominated for Speaker a series of prominent lawmakers, including ex-Speaker James Blaine of Maine in 1875, former Appropriations Chairman James A. Garfield of Ohio, in 1876, 1877, and 1879, and ex-Speaker Keifer in 1883. "It is hard to believe that House partisans would place a man in the speakership when in the majority, and nominate him for this office when in the minority, and not look to him for legislative guidance."[27] This was not the case, according to some observers, with respect to ex-Speaker Keifer.

text: In brief, there is disagreement among historical analysts as to the exact time period when the minority leadership emerged officially as a party position. Nonetheless, it seems safe to conclude that the position emerged during the latter part of the 19th century, a period of strong party organization and professional politicians. This era was "marked by strong partisan attachments, resilient patronage-based party organizations, and...high levels of party voting in Congress."[28] Plainly, these were conditions conducive to the establishment of a more highly differentiated House leadership structure.[29]

text: Minority Party Nominees for Speaker, 1865–1897[edit]

text: While the Office of the House Historian only lists Minority Leaders starting in 1899,[30] the minority's nominees for Speaker (at the beginning of each Congress) may be considered their party's leaders before that time.

text:
1865: James Brooks (D-NY)
1867: Samuel S. Marshall (D-IL)
1869: Michael C. Kerr (D-IN)
1871: George W. Morgan (D-OH)
1873: Fernando Wood (D-NY)
1875: James Gillespie Blaine (R-ME)
1877, 1879: James Abram Garfield (R-OH)
1881: Samuel Jackson Randall (D-PA)
1883: Joseph Warren Keifer (R-OH)
1885, 1887: Thomas Brackett Reed (R-ME)
1889: John Griffin Carlisle (D-KY)
1891, 1893: Thomas Brackett Reed (R-ME)
1895: Charles F. Crisp (D-GA)
1897: Joseph W. Bailey (D-TX)

text: Sources: Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government, by Jeffery A. Jenkins and Charles Haines Stewart and Archive of OurCampaigns.com

text: Trends[edit]

text: Two other points of historical interest merit brief mention. First, until the 61st Congress (1909–1910), "it was the custom to have the minority leader also serve as the ranking minority member on the two most powerful committees, Rules and Ways and Means."[31] Today, the minority leader no longer serves on these committees; however, he or she appoints the minority members of the Rules Committee and influences the assignment of partisan colleagues to the Ways and Means Committee.

text: Second, Democrats have always elevated their minority floor leader to the speakership upon reclaiming majority status. Republicans have not always followed this leadership succession pattern. In 1919, for instance, Republicans bypassed James R. Mann, R-IL, who had been minority leader for eight years, and elected Frederick Gillett, R-MA, to be Speaker. Mann "had angered many Republicans by objecting to their private bills on the floor;" also he was a protégé of autocratic Speaker Joseph Cannon, R-IL (1903–1911), and many Members "suspected that he would try to re-centralize power in his hands if elected Speaker."[32] More recently, although Robert H. Michel was the Minority Leader in 1994 when the Republicans regained control of the House in the 1994 midterm elections, he had already announced his retirement and had little or no involvement in the campaign, including the Contract with America which was unveiled six weeks before voting day.

text: In the instance when the Presidency and both Houses of Congress are controlled by one party, the Speaker normally assumes a lower profile and defers to the President. For that situation the House Minority Leader can play the role of a de facto "leader of the opposition", often more so than the Senate Minority Leader, due to the more partisan nature of the House and the greater role of leadership. Minority Leaders who have played prominent roles in opposing the incumbent President have included Gerald Ford, Richard Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, and John Boehner.

text: Institutional functions[edit]

text: The style and role of any minority leader is influenced by a variety of elements, including personality and contextual factors, such as the size and cohesion of the minority party, whether their party controls the White House, the general political climate in the House, and the controversy that is sometimes associated with the legislative agenda. Despite the variability of these factors, there are a number of institutional obligations associated with this position. Many of these assignments or roles are spelled out in the House rule book. Others have devolved upon the position in other ways. To be sure, the minority leader is provided with extra staff resources—beyond those accorded him or her as a Representative—to assist in carrying out diverse leadership functions. Worth emphasis is that there are limits on the institutional role of the minority leader, because the majority party exercises disproportionate influence over the agenda, partisan ratios on committees, staff resources, administrative operations, and the day-to-day schedule and management of floor activities.

text: Under the rules of the House, the minority leader has certain roles and responsibilities. They include the following:

text: Drug Testing. Under Rule I, clause 9, the "Speaker, in consultation with the Minority Leader, shall develop through an appropriate entity of the House a system for drug testing in the House."

text: Inspector General. Rule II, clause 6, states that the "Inspector General shall be appointed for a Congress by the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly." This rule further states that the minority leader and other specified House leaders shall be notified of any financial irregularity involving the House and receive audit reports of the inspector general.

text: Questions of Privilege. Under Rule IX, clause 2, a resolution "offered as a question of privilege by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader ... shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn." This rule further references the minority leader with respect to the division of time for debate of these resolutions.

text: Oversight Plans. Under Rule X, clause 2, not later "than March 31 in the first session of a Congress, after consultation with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, the Committee on Government Reform shall report to the House the oversight plans" of the standing committees along with any recommendations it or the House leaders have proposed to ensure the effective coordination of committees' oversight plans.

text: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Investigative Subcommittees. Rule X, clause 5, stipulates: "At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker or his designee and the Minority Leader or his designee each shall appoint 10 Members, Delegates, or Resident Commissioners from his respective party who are not members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of that committee during that Congress."

text: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "The Speaker and Minority Leader shall be ex officio members of the select committee but shall have no vote in the select committee and may not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum." In addition, each leader may designate a member of his leadership staff to assist him with his ex officio duties. (Rule X, clause 11).

text: Motion to Recommit with Instructions. Under Rule XIII, clause 6, the Rules Committee may not (except in certain specified circumstances) issue a "rule" that prevents the minority leader or a designee from offering a motion to recommit with instructions.

text: In addition, the minority leader has a number of other institutional functions. For instance, the minority leader is sometimes statutorily authorized to appoint individuals to certain federal entities; he or she and the majority leader each name three Members to serve as Private Calendar objectors; he or she is consulted with respect to reconvening the House per the usual formulation of conditional concurrent adjournment resolutions; he or she is a traditional member of the House Office Building Commission; he or she is a member of the United States Capitol Preservation Commission; and he or she may, after consultation with the Speaker, convene an early organizational party caucus or conference. Informally, the minority leader maintains ties with majority party leaders to learn about the schedule and other House matters and forges agreements or understandings with them insofar as feasible.

text: Party functions[edit]

text: The minority leader has a number of formal and informal party responsibilities. Formally, the rules of each party specify certain roles and responsibilities for their leader. For example, under Democratic rules for the 106th Congress, the minority leader may call meetings of the Democratic Caucus. He or she is a member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; names the members of the Democratic Leadership Council; chairs the Policy Committee; and heads the Steering Committee. Examples of other assignments are making "recommendations to the Speaker on all Democratic Members who shall serve as conferees" and nominating party members to the Committees on Rules and House Administration. Republican rules identify generally comparable functions for their top party leader.

text: Informally, the minority leader has a wide range of party assignments. Lewis Deschler, the late House Parliamentarian (1928–1974), summarized the diverse duties of a party's floor leader:

text: A party's floor leader, in conjunction with other party leaders, plays an influential role in the formulation of party policy and programs. They are instrumental in guiding legislation favored by his party through the House, or in resisting those programs of the other party that are considered undesirable by his own party. They are instrumental in devising and implementing his party's strategy on the floor with respect to promoting or opposing legislation. They are kept constantly informed as to the status of legislative business and as to the sentiment of his party respecting particular legislation under consideration. Such information is derived in part from the floor leader's contacts with his party's members serving on House committees, and with the members of the party's whip organization.[33]

text: These and several other party roles merit further mention because they influence significantly the leader's overarching objective: retake majority control of the House. "I want to get [my] members elected and win more seats," said Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-MO. "That's what [my partisan colleagues] want to do, and that's what they want me to do."[34]

text: Five activities illustrate how minority leaders seek to accomplish this primary goal.

text: Provide Campaign Assistance. Minority leaders are typically energetic and aggressive campaigners for partisan incumbents and challengers. There is hardly any major aspect of campaigning that does not engage their attention. For example, they assist in recruiting qualified candidates; they establish "leadership PACs" to raise and distribute funds to House candidates of their party; they try to persuade partisan colleagues not to retire or run for other offices so as to hold down the number of open seats the party would need to defend; they coordinate their campaign activities with congressional and national party campaign committees; they encourage outside groups to back their candidates; they travel around the country to speak on behalf of party candidates; and they encourage incumbent colleagues to make significant financial contributions to the party's campaign committee. "The amount of time that [Minority Leader] Gephardt is putting in to help the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] is unheard of," noted a Democratic lobbyist."No DCCC chairman has ever had that kind of support."[35]

text: Devise Minority Party Strategies. The minority leader, in consultation with other party colleagues, has a range of strategic options that he or she can employ to advance minority party objectives. The options selected depend on a wide range of circumstances, such as the visibility or significance of the issue and the degree of cohesion within the majority party. For instance, a majority party riven by internal dissension, as occurred during the early 1900s when Progressive and "regular" Republicans were at loggerheads, may provide the minority leader with greater opportunities to achieve their priorities than if the majority party exhibited high degrees of party cohesion. Among the variable strategies available to the minority party, which can vary from bill to bill and be used in combination or at different stages of the lawmaking process, are the following:

text: Cooperation. The minority party supports and cooperates with the majority party in building winning coalitions on the floor.

text: Inconsequential Opposition. The minority party offers opposition, but it is of marginal significance, typically because the minority is so small.

text: Withdrawal. The minority party chooses not to take a position on an issue, perhaps because of intraparty divisions.

text: Innovation. The minority party develops alternatives and agendas of its own and attempts to construct winning coalitions on their behalf.

text: Partisan Opposition. The minority party offers strong opposition to majority party initiatives but does not counter with policy alternatives of their own.

text: Constructive Opposition. The minority party opposes initiatives of the majority party and offers its own proposals as substitutes.

text: Participation. The minority party is in the position of having to consider the views and proposals of their president and to assess their majority-building role with respect to his priorities.[36]

text: A look at one minority leadership strategy—partisan opposition—may suggest why it might be employed in specific circumstances. The purposes of obstruction are several, such as frustrating the majority party's ability to govern or attracting press and media attention to the alleged ineffectiveness of the majority party. "We know how to delay," remarked Minority Leader Gephardt[37] Dilatory motions to adjourn, appeals of the presiding officer's ruling, or numerous requests for roll call votes are standard time-consuming parliamentary tactics. By stalling action on the majority party's agenda, the minority leader may be able to launch a campaign against a "do-nothing Congress" and convince enough voters to put his party back in charge of the House. To be sure, the minority leader recognizes that "going negative" carries risks and may not be a winning strategy if his party fails to offer policy alternatives that appeal to broad segments of the general public.

text: Promote and Publicize the Party's Agenda. An important aim of the minority leader is to develop an electorally attractive agenda of ideas and proposals that unites their own House members and that energizes and appeals to core electoral supporters as well as independents and swing voters. Despite the minority leader's restricted ability to set the House's agenda, there are still opportunities for him to raise minority priorities. For example, the minority leader may employ, or threaten to use, discharge petitions to try and bring minority priorities to the floor.[38] If he or she is able to attract the required 218 signatures on a discharge petition by attracting majority party supporters, he or she can force minority initiatives to the floor over the opposition of the majority leadership. As a GOP minority leader once said, the challenges he confronted are to "keep our people together, and to look for votes on the other side."[39]

text: Minority leaders may engage in numerous activities to publicize their party's priorities and to criticize the opposition's. For instance, to keep their party colleagues "on message," they insure that partisan colleagues are sent packets of suggested press releases or "talking points" for constituent meetings in their districts; they help to organize "town meetings" in Members' districts around the country to publicize the party's agenda or a specific priority, such as health care or education; they sponsor party "retreats" to discuss issues and assess the party's public image; they create "theme teams" to craft party messages that might be raised during the one-minute, morning hour, or special order period in the House; they conduct surveys of party colleagues to discern their policy preferences; they establish websites that highlight and distribute party images and issues to users; and they organize task forces or issue teams to formulate party programs and to develop strategies for communicating these programs to the public.

text: House minority leaders also hold joint news conferences and consult with their counterparts in the Senate—and with the president if their party controls the White House. The overall objectives are to develop a coordinated communications strategy, to share ideas and information, and to present a united front on issues. Minority leaders also make floor speeches and close debate on major issues before the House; they deliver addresses in diverse forums across the country, and they write books or articles that highlight minority party goals and achievements. They must also be prepared "to debate on the floor, ad lib, no notes, on a moment's notice," remarked Minority Leader Michel.[40] In brief, minority leaders are key strategists in developing and promoting the party's agenda and in outlining ways to neutralize the opposition's arguments and proposals.

text: Confer With the White House. If their party controls the White House, the minority leader confers regularly with the President and his aides about issues before Congress, the Administration's agenda, and political events generally. Strategically, the role of the minority leader will vary depending on whether the President is of the same party or the other party. In general, minority leaders will often work to advance the goals and aspirations of their party's President in Congress. When Robert Michel, R-IL, was minority leader (1981–1995), he typically functioned as the "point man" for Republican presidents.[41] President Ronald Reagan's 1981 policy successes in the Democratic-controlled House was due in no small measure to Minority Leader Michel's effectiveness in wooing so-called "Reagan Democrats" to support, for instance, the Administration's landmark budget reconciliation bill. There are occasions, of course, when minority leaders will fault the legislative initiatives of their President. On an administration proposal that could adversely affect his district, Michel stated that he might "abdicate my leadership role [on this issue] since I can't harmonize my own views with the administration's."[42] Minority Leader Gephardt, as another example, has publicly opposed a number of President Clinton's legislative initiatives from "fast track" trade authority to various budget issues.[43]

text: When the White House is controlled by the House majority party, then the House minority leader assumes a larger role in formulating alternatives to executive branch initiatives and in acting as a national spokesperson for their party. "As Minority Leader during [President Lyndon Johnson's] Democratic administration, my responsibility has been to propose Republican alternatives," said Minority Leader Gerald Ford, R-MI.[44] Greatly outnumbered in the House, Minority Leader Ford devised a political strategy that allowed Republicans to offer their alternatives in a manner that provided them political protection. As Ford explained:

text: "We used a technique of laying our program out in general debate," he said. When we got to the amendment phase, we would offer our program as a substitute for the Johnson proposal. If we lost in the Committee of the Whole, then we would usually offer it as a motion to recommit and get a vote on that. And if we lost on the motion to recommit, our Republican members had a choice: They could vote against the Johnson program and say we did our best to come up with a better alternative. Or they could vote for it and make the same argument. Usually we lost; but when you're only 140 out of 435, you don't expect to win many.[45]

text: Ford also teamed with Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-IL, to act as national spokesmen for their party. They met with the press every Thursday following the weekly joint leadership meeting. Ford's predecessor as minority leader, Charles Halleck, R-IN, probably received more visibility in this role, because the press and media dubbed it the "Ev and Charlie Show." In fact, the "Republican National Committee budgeted $30,000 annually to produce the weekly news conference."[46]

text: Foster Party Harmony. Minority status, by itself, is often an important inducement for minority party members to stay together, to accommodate different interests, and to submerge intraparty factional disagreements. To hold a diverse membership together often requires extensive consultations and discussions with rank-and-file Members and with different factional groupings. As Minority Leader Gephardt said:

text: Gephardt added that "inclusion and empowerment of the people on the line have to be done to get the best performance" from the minority party.[48] Other techniques for fostering party harmony include the appointment of task forces composed of partisan colleagues with conflicting views to reach consensus on issues; the creation of new leadership positions as a way to reach out and involve a greater diversity of partisans in the leadership structure; and daily meetings in the Leader's office (or at breakfast, lunch, or dinner) to lay out floor strategy or political objectives for the minority party.

text: Party whips and assistant party leaders[edit]

text: Whips[edit]

text: A whip manages their party's legislative program on the House floor. The whip keeps track of all legislation and ensures that all party members are present when important measures are to be voted upon.

text: The Majority Whip is an elected member of the majority party who assists the Speaker of the House and the majority leader to coordinate ideas on, and garner support for, proposed legislation.

text: The Minority Whip is a member of the minority party who assists the minority leader in coordinating the party caucus in its responses to legislation and other matters. However, the U.S. House of Representatives does not use the term "minority whip," instead calling the position "Republican Whip" or "Democratic Whip" depending on the minority party.

text: The Chief Deputy Whip is the primary assistant to the whip, who is the chief vote counter for their party. The current chief deputy majority whip is Republican Patrick McHenry. Within the House Republican Conference, the chief deputy whip is the highest appointed position and often a launching pad for future positions in the House Leadership. The House Democratic Conference has multiple chief deputy whips, led by a Senior Chief Deputy Whip, which is the highest appointed position within the House Democratic Caucus. The current senior chief deputy minority whip, John Lewis, has held his post since 1991.

text:
List of Republican chief deputy whips:

David F. Emery, 1981–1983 (Minority)
Tom Loeffler, 1983–1987 (Minority)
Edward Rell Madigan, 1987–1989 (Minority)
Robert Smith Walker, 1989–1995 (Minority)
Dennis Hastert, 1995–1999 (Majority)
Roy Blunt, 1999–2003 (Majority)
Eric Cantor, 2003–2009 (Majority, 2003–2007) (Minority, 2007–2009)
Kevin McCarthy, 2009–2011 (Minority)
Peter Roskam, 2011–2014 (Majority)
Patrick McHenry, 2014–present (Majority)

List of Democratic Chief Deputy Whips

(1977–1981) Dan Rostenkowski
(1981–1987) Bill Alexander
(1987–1991) David Bonior
(1991–1993) Barbara Kennelly, Butler Derrick, & John Lewis
(1993–1995) Barbara Kennelly, Butler Derrick, John Lewis, & Bill Richardson
(1995–1997) Rosa DeLauro, John Lewis, & Bill Richardson
(1997–1999) Rosa DeLauro, Chet Edwards, John Lewis, & Robert Menendez
(1999–2002) Chet Edwards, John Lewis, Ed Pastor & Maxine Waters
(2002–2003) John Lewis, Ed Pastor, Max Sandlin & Maxine Waters
(2003–2005) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip), Joe Crowley, Baron Hill, Ron Kind, Ed Pastor, Max Sandlin, Jan Schakowsky, & Maxine Waters
(2005–2007) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip), Joe Crowley, Diana DeGette, Ron Kind, Ed Pastor, Jan Schakowsky, John Tanner & Maxine Waters
(2007–2011) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip), G.K. Butterfield, Joe Crowley, Diana DeGette, Ed Pastor, Jan Schakowsky, John Tanner, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, & Maxine Waters
(2011–2013) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip), Maxine Waters, Ed Pastor, Jan Schakowsky, Joseph Crowley, Diana DeGette, G. K. Butterfield, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Matheson, & Peter Welch
(2013–2015) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip) Ben Ray Lujan, Terri Sewell, Jan Schakowsky, Keith Ellison, Diana DeGette, G. K. Butterfield, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Matheson, & Peter Welch
(2015–present) John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip) Jan Schakowsky, Diana DeGette, G. K. Butterfield, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Keith Ellison, Terri Sewell, Kyrsten Sinema, Joaquin Castro & Peter Welch

text: Assistant party leaders[edit]

text: The position of Assistant Democratic Leader was established on January 3, 2011 and filled by Jim Clyburn to avoid a battle for whip between then-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and then-Majority Whip Jim Clyburn. It is said to replace the Assistant to the Leader post previously held by Chris Van Hollen, who had attended all leadership meetings but was not in the leadership hierarchy.

text: List of party leaders and whips[edit]

text: (≥ and names in Bold indicate the Majority Leader and Majority whip)

text:
Congress
Years
Democratic whip
Democratic leader

Speaker

Republican leader
Republican whip

56
1899–1901
Oscar Underwood[49]
(Alabama)
James D. Richardson
(Tennessee)
David B. Henderson
(R, Iowa)
≥ Sereno E. Payne
(New York)
≥ James Albertus Tawney
(Minnesota)

57
1901–1903
James Tilghman Lloyd
(Missouri)

58
1903–1905
John Sharp Williams
(Mississippi)
Joe Cannon
(R, Illinois)

59
1905–1907
≥ James E. Watson
(Indiana)

60
1907–1908

1908–1909

61
1909–1911
None
Champ Clark
(Missouri)
≥ John W. Dwight
(New York)

62
1911–1913
None
≥ Oscar Underwood
(Alabama)
Champ Clark
(D, Missouri)
James Mann
(Illinois)
John W. Dwight
(New York)

63
1913–1915
≥ Thomas M. Bell
(Georgia)
Charles H. Burke
(South Dakota)

64
1915–1917
None
≥ Claude Kitchin
(North Carolina)
Charles M. Hamilton
(New York)

65
1917–1919

66
1919–1921
None
Champ Clark
(Missouri)
Frederick H. Gillett
(R, Massachusetts)
≥ Frank W. Mondell
(Wyoming)
≥ Harold Knutson
(Minnesota)

67
1921–1923
William A. Oldfield
(Arkansas)
Claude Kitchin
(North Carolina)

68
1923–1925
Finis J. Garrett
(Tennessee)
≥ Nicholas Longworth
(Ohio)
≥ Albert H. Vestal
(Indiana)

69
1925–1927
Nicholas Longworth
(R, Ohio)
≥ John Q. Tilson
(Connecticut)

70
1927–1929

71
1929–1931
John McDuffie
(Alabama)
John Nance Garner
(Texas)

72
1931–1933
≥ John McDuffie
(Alabama)
≥ Henry T. Rainey
(Illinois)
John Nance Garner
(D, Texas)
Bertrand Snell
(New York)
Carl G. Bachmann
(West Virginia)

73
1933–1935
≥ Arthur H. Greenwood
(Indiana)
≥ Jo Byrns
(Tennessee)
Henry T. Rainey
(D, Illinois)
Harry L. Englebright
(California)

74
1935–1936
≥ Patrick J. Boland
(Pennsylvania)
≥ William Bankhead
(Alabama)
Jo Byrns
(D, Tennessee)

1936–1937
≥ Sam Rayburn
(Texas)
William B. Bankhead
(D, Alabama)

75
1937–1939

76
1939–1940
Joe Martin
(Massachusetts)

1940–1941
≥ John W. McCormack
(Massachusetts)
Sam Rayburn
(D, Texas)

77
1941–1942

1942–1943
≥ Robert Ramspeck
(Georgia)

78
1943–1943

1943–1945
Leslie Arends
(Illinois)

79
1945–1945

1946–1947
≥ John Sparkman
(Alabama)

80
1947–1949
John McCormack
(Massachusetts)
Sam Rayburn
(Texas)
Joe Martin
(R, Massachusetts)
≥ Charles Halleck
(Indiana)
≥ Leslie Arends
(Illinois)

81
1949–1951
≥ Percy Priest
(Tennessee)
≥ John W. McCormack
(Massachusetts)
Sam Rayburn
(D, Texas)
Joe Martin
(Massachusetts)
Leslie Arends
(Illinois)

82
1951–1953

83
1953–1955
John McCormack
(Massachusetts)
Sam Rayburn
(Texas)
Joe Martin
(R, Massachusetts)
≥ Charles Halleck
(Indiana)
≥ Leslie Arends
(Illinois)

84
1955–1957
≥ Carl Albert
(Oklahoma)
≥ John W. McCormack
(Massachusetts)
Sam Rayburn
(D, Texas)
Joe Martin
(Massachusetts)
Leslie Arends
(Illinois)

85
1957–1959

86
1959–1961
Charles Halleck
(Indiana)

87
1961–1962

1962–1963
≥ Hale Boggs
(Louisiana)
≥ Carl Albert
(Oklahoma)
John W. McCormack
(D, Massachusetts)

88
1963–1965

89
1965–1967
Gerald Ford
(Michigan)

90
1967–1969

91
1969–1971

92
1971–1973
≥ Tip O'Neill
(Massachusetts)
≥ Hale Boggs
(Louisiana)
Carl Albert
(D, Oklahoma)

93
1973–1973
≥ John J. McFall
(California)
≥ Tip O'Neill
(Massachusetts)

1973–1975
John Rhodes
(Arizona)

94
1975–1977
Bob Michel
(Illinois)

95
1977–1979
≥ John Brademas
(Indiana)
≥ Jim Wright
(Texas)
Tip O'Neill
(D, Massachusetts)

96
1979–1981

97
1981–1983
≥ Tom Foley
(Washington)
Bob Michel
(Illinois)
Trent Lott
(Mississippi)

98
1983–1985

99
1985–1987

100
1987–1989
≥ Tony Coelho
(California)
≥ Tom Foley
(Washington)
Jim Wright
(D, Texas)

101
1989–1989
Dick Cheney
(Wyoming)

1989–1991
≥ William H. Gray III
(Pennsylvania)
≥ Dick Gephardt
(Missouri)
Tom Foley
(D, Washington)
Newt Gingrich
(Georgia)

102
1991–1991

1991–1993
≥ David Bonior
(Michigan)

103
1993–1995

104
1995–1997
David Bonior
(Michigan)
Dick Gephardt
(Missouri)
Newt Gingrich
(R, Georgia)
≥ Dick Armey
(Texas)
≥ Tom DeLay
(Texas)

105
1997–1999

106
1999–2001
Dennis Hastert
(R, Illinois)

107
2001–2002

2002–2003
Nancy Pelosi
(California)

108
2003–2005
Steny Hoyer
(Maryland)
Nancy Pelosi
(California)
≥ Tom DeLay
(Texas)
≥ Roy Blunt
(Missouri)

109
2005–2005

2005–2006
≥ Roy Blunt
(Missouri) (acting)

2006–2007
≥ John Boehner
(Ohio)

110
2007–2009
≥ Jim Clyburn
(South Carolina)
≥ Steny Hoyer
(Maryland)
Nancy Pelosi
(D, California)
John Boehner
(Ohio)
Roy Blunt
(Missouri)

111
2009–2011
Eric Cantor
(Virginia)

112
2011–2013
Steny Hoyer
(Maryland)
Nancy Pelosi
(California)
John Boehner
(R, Ohio)
≥ Eric Cantor
(Virginia)
≥ Kevin McCarthy
(California)

113
2013–2014

2014–2015
≥ Kevin McCarthy
(California)
≥ Steve Scalise
(Louisiana)

114
2015–2015

2015–2017
Paul Ryan
(R, Wisconsin)

115
2017–2019

Congress
Years
Democratic whip
Democratic leader
Speaker
Republican leader
Republican whip


document_title: Arihant-class submarine

question_text: which is the first nuclear submarine to be designed and built in india

text: Arihant-class submarine

text: History[edit]

text: In December 1971, during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the US President Richard Nixon sent a carrier battle group named Task Force 74, led by the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal in an attempt to intimidate India.[11][12] In response, the Soviet Union sent a submarine armed with nuclear missiles from Vladivostok to trail the US task force.[13] The event demonstrated the significance of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile submarines to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.[14] Following the 1974 Smiling Buddha nuclear test, the Director of Marine Engineering (DME) at Naval Headquarters initiated a technical feasibility study for an indigenous nuclear propulsion system (Project 932).[15]

text: The Indian Navy's Advanced Technology Vessel project to design and construct a nuclear submarine took shape in the 1990s.[16] Then Defence Minister George Fernandes confirmed the project in 1998.[17] The initial intent of the project was to design nuclear-powered fast attack submarines, though following nuclear tests conducted by India in 1998 at Pokhran Test Range and the Indian pledge of no first use, the project was re-aligned towards the design of a ballistic missile submarine in order to complete India's nuclear triad.[18][19][20]

text: Description[edit]

text: The Arihant-class submarines are nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines built under the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project.[21][22][23][24][25][26] They will be the first nuclear submarines designed and built by India.[27] The submarines are 112 m (367 ft) long with a beam of 11 m (36 ft), a draught of 10 m (33 ft), displacement of 6,000 tonnes (5,900 long tons; 6,600 short tons) and a diving depth of 300 m (980 ft). The complement is about 95, including officers and sailors.[28] The boats are powered by a single seven blade propeller powered by an 83 MW (111,000 hp) pressurised water reactor and can achieve a maximum speed of 12–15 knots (22–28 km/h) when surfaced and 24 knots (44 km/h) when submerged.[28]

text: The submarines have four launch tubes in their hump and can carry up to 12 K-15 Sagarika missiles with one warhead each (with a range of 750 km or 470 mi) or 4 K-4 missiles (with a range of 3,500 km or 2,200 mi).[29][30] The submarines are similar to the Akula-class submarine of Russia.[28] The Indian Navy will train on INS Chakra, an Akula-class submarine leased from Russia in 2012.[31][32]

text: Development[edit]

text: The submarines are powered by a pressurised water reactor with highly enriched uranium fuel.[33][34] The miniaturized version of the reactor was designed and built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) in Kalpakkam.[35] It included a 42-metre (138 ft) section of the submarine's pressure hull containing the shielding tank with water and the reactor, a control room, as well as an auxiliary control room for monitoring safety parameters.[36] The prototype reactor became critical on 11 November 2003 and was declared operational on 22 September 2006.[14] Successful operation of the prototype for three years enabled the production version of the reactor for Arihant.[37][38] The reactor subsystems were tested at the Machinery Test Center in Visakhapatnam.[39] Facilities for loading and replacing the fuel cores of the naval reactors in berthed submarines were also established.[14]

text: The detailed engineering of the design was implemented at Larsen & Toubro's submarine design center at their Hazira shipbuilding facility.[40] Tata Power SED built the control systems for the submarine.[41] The steam turbines and associated systems integrated with the reactor were supplied by Walchandnagar Industries.[42] The lead vessel underwent a long and extensive process of testing after its launch in July 2009.[43] The propulsion and power systems were tested with high-pressure steam trials followed by harbor-acceptance trials that included submersion tests by flooding its ballast tanks and controlled dives to limited depths.[44] INS Arihant's reactor went critical for the first time on 10 August 2013.[45] On 13 December 2014, the submarine set off for its extensive sea trials.[46][47]

text: Ships in class[edit]

text: Exact number of planned submarines remains unclear, according to media reports about three to six submarines are planned to be built.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] The first boat of the class, INS Arihant was commissioned in August 2016.[7][55] The first four vessels are expected to be commissioned by 2023.[5] In December 2014, the work on a second nuclear reactor began and the second boat, INS Aridhaman is being prepared for sea trials.[56] The next three ships in the class, after the lead ship, will be larger and have 8 missile launch tubes to carry up to 8 K4 and a more powerful pressurized water reactor than INS Arihant. A larger follow on class to the arihant class is also planned, these new boats will be capable of carrying 12 to 16 ballistic missiles.[57][58] The first submarine was commissioned into the Indian Navy in August 2016. [59]

text:
Name
Pennant
Laid down
Launch
Sea Trials
Commission
Status

Fleet I

INS Arihant
S 73 / S2[58][60]
1997[61]
26 July 2009
13 December 2014 [62]
August 2016
In service[8]

Fleet II

INS Aridhaman
S 74 / S3[58]
2010[61]
Late 2017
Late 2017/Early 2018[61]
Late 2019[61]
Outfitting[5][63][61]

tbd
S 75 / S4[58]

Under construction[64]

tbd
S 76 / S5[58]

Under construction

text: Timeline[edit]

text:
Date
Event

19 May 1998
Confirmation of ATV project by the then Defence Minister George Fernandes

11 November 2003
Prototype nuclear reactor becomes critical

22 September 2006
Nuclear reactor is declared operational

26 July 2009
Lead vessel of the class, INS Arihant is formally launched

10 August 2013
Arihant's on-board nuclear reactor attains criticality

13 December 2014
INS Arihant begins extensive sea & weapons trials

25 November 2015
INS Arihant successfully test-fired dummy B5 missile

31 March 2016
INS Arihant successfully test-fired K4 missile

August 2016
INS Arihant commissioned.[7]

Late 2017
INS Aridhaman to be launched[61]

Early 2018
INS Aridhaman to begin sea trials[61]

2019
INS Aridhaman to be delivered.[7][61]


document_title: Great Falls (Passaic River)

question_text: the great falls of paterson flows over what type of rock

text: Great Falls (Passaic River)

text: History[edit]

text: Formation and early history[edit]

text: Geologically, the falls were formed at the end of the last ice age approximately 13,000 years ago. Formerly the Passaic had followed a shorter course through the Watchung Mountains near present-day Summit. As the glacier receded, the river's previous course was blocked by a newly formed moraine. A large lake, called Glacial Lake Passaic, formed behind the Watchungs. As the ice receded, the river found a new circuitous route around the north end of the Watchungs, carving the spectacular falls through the underlying basalt, which was formed approximately 200 million years ago.

text: The falls later became the site of a habitation for Lenape Native Americans, and later for Dutch settlers in the 1690s.

text: Industrial development[edit]

text: In 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the falls and was impressed by its potential for industry. Later when Hamilton was the nation's Secretary of Treasury, he selected the site of the nation's first planned industrial city, which he called a "national manufactory." In 1791, Hamilton helped found the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures (S.U.M.),  state-chartered private corporation to fulfill this vision. The town of Paterson was founded by the society and named after New Jersey Governor William Paterson in appreciation of his efforts to promote the society.

text: Hamilton commissioned civil engineer Pierre Charles L'Enfant, responsible for the layout of the new capital at Washington, D.C., to design the system of canals known as raceways supplying the power for the watermills in the new town.[8] As a result, Paterson became the nucleus for a burgeoning mill industry. In 1792, David Godwin was commissioned to build the first water-powered cotton spinning mill in New Jersey. He subsequently built the first Dam on the falls, it was a structure made of wood.[9] In 1812, it was the site of the state's first continuous roll paper mill. Other products whose construction used the falls as a power source include the Rogers Locomotive Works (1832), the Colt revolver (1837),  and the USS Holland (SS-1) (1898). The oldest extant structure in the historic district is the Phoenix Mill, built in 1813.[10] The industrial area also became the site of labor unrest, as it was a center for the 1913 Paterson silk strike. Immigrant workers, facing harsh conditions in factories staged numerous strikes, giving the United States its first organized labor movement.

text: The society continued operation until 1945 when its charter and property were sold to the city of Paterson. The area fell into disuse with the steep decline of industry in the region during the 20th century. In 1971, the Great Falls Preservation and Development Corporation was established to restore and redevelop the historic mill buildings and raceways.

text: Great Falls State Park[edit]

text: The State of New Jersey announced plans for a new urban state park in Paterson surrounding the Great Falls, called Great Falls State Park, in 2007.[11] The master plan for the park called for utilizing surrounding industrial areas for parklands that include a trail network and recreation areas, and creating new areas to view the falls. These plans were superseded by the establishment of Great Falls National Historical Park (see below).

text: The falls in literature[edit]

text: The unique history of the falls and the city were described in the five-volume philosophical poem Paterson by William Carlos Williams. Among the episodes described in Williams' poem is the 1827 leap over the falls by Sam Patch, who later became the first known person to perform a stunt at Niagara Falls.

text: The 2016 film Paterson, directed by Jim Jarmusch, is partly inspired by the works of Williams and features the falls as a primary location.

text: The falls in television[edit]

text: The falls were featured in the pilot as well as episode 6 of the first season of The Sopranos, Pax Soprana in which two mobsters threw a drug dealer off the bridge and into the falls, to his death. The 2016 film "Paterson" about a local bus driver and his poetry has numerous scenes shot at the falls.

text: Viewing the falls[edit]

text: The Falls are viewable from Haines Overlook Park on the south and Mary Ellen Kramer Park on the north. Drive-by viewing is available from McBride Avenue where it crosses the river just above the Falls. A footbridge over the Falls gorge (historically, the eighth such bridge to span this chasm) also serves as an outlook point. A visitor's center at the corner of Spruce and McBride Avenues, in the Great Falls Historic District, provides a historical overview of the falls and the industrial and cultural history of Paterson.[citation needed] A record 177,000 visitors went to see the Great Falls in 2016.[12]

text: National Natural Landmark[edit]

text:
The Great Falls of Paterson – Garret Mountain is a National Natural Landmark designated in January 1967 and were expanded in April 1967 to include nearby Garret Mountain.  Together they help demonstrate how jointed basaltic lava flow shaped the geology of the area during the Early Mesozoic period through both extrusion and intrusion.[13]
The designation protects the site from federal development, but not from local and state development. Redevelopment of the decayed adjacent industrial areas has been an ongoing controversial topic. An attempt in the 1990s to redevelop the adjacent Allied Textile Printing Co. (ATP) facility, destroyed by fire in the 1980s, into prefabricated townhouses was initially approved by the city but later repelled by a coalition of local citizens seeking to preserve the historic character of the district.

text: National Historical Park[edit]

text: Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park was authorized to be added to the National Park System of the United States under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act.[3] On March 30, 2009, President Obama signed legislation authorizing the falls as a national historical park, which would provide additional federal protections for the 77-foot waterfall.[3][14][15] By 2011, Great Falls State Park and other land along the Passaic River were transferred to the federal government for the creation of the park. Formal establishment as a unit of the National Park System required action by the Secretary of the Interior,[3] which took place November 7, 2011, when Secretary Salazar formally accepted lands on behalf of the United States, and dedicated the park as the nation's 397th park system unit.[16]

text: Hydroelectric facility[edit]

text: The hydroelectric plant at the falls is operated by Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, which is considering commissioning another facility downstream at the Dundee Dam.[17][18]

text: The Great Falls hydroelectric plant has three Kaplan type turbines with a total capacity of 10.95 Mwe. Flow through each turbine is 710 cfs, with a total flow of 2,130 cfs. Three 8.5' diameter penstocks feed the turbines, with a velocity 12.5 ft/sec and 8.5 mph.


document_title: Healthcare in Germany

question_text: who manages health insurance and care in germany

text: Healthcare in Germany

text: History[edit]

text: Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system,[1] with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. Bismarck stressed the importance of three key principles; solidarity, the government is responsible for ensuring access by those who need it, subsidiarity, policies are implemented with smallest no political and administrative influence, and corporatism, the government representative bodies in health care professions set out procedures they deem feasible.[11] Mandatory health insurance originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[12] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Approximately 92% of the population are covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1,100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[13] Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physicians' associations and sickness funds.

text: Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries.[14] The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.[15]

text: Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days).[16][17] The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[18]

text: Regulation[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2017)

text: The healthcare system is regulated by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), a public health organization authorized to make binding regulations growing out of health reform bills passed by lawmakers, along with routine decisions regarding healthcare in Germany.[19]

text: Health insurance[edit]

text: Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. Provider payment is negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified self-governed bodies (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder). The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

text: Besides the "Statutory Health Insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) covering the vast majority of residents, the better off with a yearly income above almost €50,000 (US$56,497), students and civil servants for complementary coverage can opt for private health insurance (about 11% of the population). Most civil servants benefit from a tax-funded government employee benefit scheme covering a percentage of the costs, and cover the rest of the costs with a private insurance contract. Recently, private insurers provide various types of supplementary coverage as an add upon of the SHI benefit package (e.g. for glasses, coverage abroad and additional dental care or more sophisticated dentures). Health insurance in Germany is split in several parts. The largest part of 89% of the population is covered by a comprehensive health insurance plan provided by statutory public health insurance funds regulated under specific the legislation set with the Sozialgesetzbuch V (SGB V), which defines the general criteria of coverage, which are translated into benefit packages by the Federal Joint Committee. The remaining 11% opt for private health insurance, including government employees.[20]

text: All wage workers pay a health-insurance contribution based on their salary if they are enrolled in the public subsystem whereas private insurers charge risk-related contributions. This may result in substantial savings for younger individuals in good health. With age, private contributions tend to rise and a number of insurees formerly cancelled their private insurance plan in order to return to statutory health insurance; this option is now only possible for beneficiaries under 55 years.[13][21]

text: Reimbursement for outpatient care was on a fee-for-service basis but has changed into basic capitation according to the number of patients seen during one quarter, with a capped overall spending for outpatient treatments and region. Moreover, regional panel physician associations regulate number of physicians allowed to accept Statutory Health Insurance in a given area. Co-payments, which exist for medicines and other items are relatively low compared to other countries.

text: Insurance systems[edit]

text: Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance.

text: Accident insurance for working accidents (Arbeitsunfallversicherung) is covered by the employer and basically covers all risks for commuting to work and at the workplace.

text: Long-term care (Pflegeversicherung) is covered half and half by employer and employee and covers cases in which a person is not able to manage his or her daily routine (provision of food, cleaning of apartment, personal hygiene, etc.). It is about 2% of a yearly salaried income or pension, with employers matching the contribution of the employee.

text: There are two separate types of health insurance: public health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung). Both systems struggle with the increasing cost of medical treatment and the changing demography. About 87.5% of the persons with health insurance are members of the public system, while 12.5% are covered by private insurance (as of 2006).[22]

text: Public insurance[edit]

text: Regular salaried employees must have public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income, above c. €50,000.00 per year (adjusted yearly), may join the private system.

text: In the Public system the premium

text:
is set by the Federal Ministry of Health based on a fixed set of covered services as described in the German Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch – SGB), which limits those services to "economically viable, sufficient, necessary and meaningful services"
is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage (currently 15.5%, 7.3% of which is covered by the employer) of salaried income under € 52,200.01 per year.
includes family members of any family members, or "registered member" ( Familienversicherung – i.e., husband/wife and children are free)
is a "pay as you go" system – there is no saving for an individual's higher health costs with rising age or existing conditions.

text: Private insurance[edit]

text: In the Private system the premium

text:
is based on an individual agreement between the insurance company and the insured person defining the set of covered services and the percentage of coverage
depends on the amount of services chosen and the person's risk and age of entry into the private system
is used to build up savings for the rising health costs at higher age (required by law)

text: For persons who have opted out of the public health insurance system to get private health insurance, it can prove difficult to subsequently go back to the public system, since this is only possible under certain circumstances, for example if they are not yet 55 years of age and their income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance[citation needed], the higher premiums must then be paid out of a lower income. During the last twenty years[when?] private health insurance became more and more expensive and less efficient compared with the public insurance.[citation needed]

text: In Germany, all privately financed products and services for health are assigned as part of the 'second health market'.[23] Unlike the 'first health market' they are usually not paid by a public or private health insurance. Patients with public health insurance paid privately about 1.5 Billion Euro in this market segment in 2011, while already 82% of physicians offered their patients in their practices individual services being not covered by the patient's insurances; the benefits of these services are controversial discussed.[24] Private investments in fitness, for wellness, assisted living, and health tourism are not included in this amount. The 'second health market' in Germany is compared to the United States still relatively small, but is growing continuously.

text: Economics[edit]

text: Health economics in Germany can be considered as a collective term for all activities that have anything to do with health in this country.[25] This interpretation done by Andreas Goldschmidt in 2002 seems, however, very generous due to several overlaps with other economic sectors.[26] A simple outline of the health sector in three areas provides an "onion model of health care economics" by Elke Dahlbeck and Josef Hilbert[27] from "Institut Arbeit und Technik (IAT)" at the University of applied sciences Gelsenkirchen:[28] Core area is the ambulatory and inpatient acute care and geriatric care, and health administration. Around it is located wholesale and supplier sector with pharmaceutical industry, medical technology, healthcare, and wholesale trade of medical products. Health-related margins are the fitness and spa facilities, assisted living, and health tourism.

text: According to this basic idea an almost totally regulated health care market like in the UK were not very productive, but also a largely deregulated market in the United States would not be optimal. Both systems would suffer concerning sustainable and comprehensive patient care. Only a hybrid of social well-balanced and competitive market conditions created a relevant optimum.[29] Nevertheless forces of the healthcare market in Germany are often regulated by a variety of amendments and health care reforms at the legislative level, especially by the "Social Security Code" (Sozialgesetzbuch- SGB) in the past 30 years.

text: Health care in Germany, including its industry and all services, is one of the largest sectors of the German economy. Direct inpatient and outpatient care equivalent to just about a quarter of the entire 'market' - depending on the perspective.[30] A total of 4.4 million people working in this, that means about one in ten employees in 2007 and 2008.[31] The total expenditure in health economics was about 287.3 billion Euro in Germany in 2010, equivalent to 11.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year and about 3.510 Euro per capita.[32]

text: Drugs costs[edit]

text: The pharmaceutical industry plays within and beyond direct health care a major role in Germany. Expenditure on pharmaceutical drugs is almost half as high as those for the entire hospital sector. Pharmaceutical drug expenditure grew by an annual average of 4.1% between 2004 and 2010. Such developments caused since the 1980s numerous health care reforms. An actual example of 2010 and 2011: First time since 2004 the drug expenditure fell from 30.2 billion Euro in 2010 to 29.1 billion Euro in 2011, i. e. minus 1.1 billion Euro or minus 3.6%. That was caused by restructuring the Social Security Code: manufacturer discount 16% instead of 6%, price moratorium, increasing discount contracts, increasing discount by wholesale trade and pharmacies.[33]

text: Statistics[edit]

text: In a sample of 13 developed countries Germany was seventh in its population weighted usage of medication in 14 classes in 2009 and tenth in 2013. The drugs studied were selected on the basis that the conditions treated had high incidence, prevalence and/or mortality, caused significant long-term morbidity and incurred high levels of expenditure and significant developments in prevention or treatment had been made in the last 10 years. The study noted considerable difficulties in cross border comparison of medication use.[34] It has the highest number of dentists in Europe - 64,287 in 2015.[35]

text: Major diagnosis[edit]

text: In 2002 the top diagnosis for male patients released from the hospital was heart disease, followed by alcohol-related disorders and hernias. For women, the top diagnoses related to pregnancies, breast cancer, and heart disease.[citation needed]

text: Hospitals[edit]

text: The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent[when?] years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the United States (5 to 6 days).[36][37] Part of the difference is that the chief consideration for hospital reimbursement is the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or diagnosis.[citation needed] Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[38]

text: An incomplete list of university hospitals in Germany is :

text:
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg,
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Rechts der Isar Hospital, Munich,
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin,
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg,
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg,
Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Aachen,
Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn.

text: In 2017 the BBC reported that compared with the United Kingdom the Caesarean rate, the use of MRI for diagnosis and the length of hospital stay are all higher in Germany.[39]

text: Waiting Times[edit]

text: According to several sources from the past decade, waiting times in Germany remain low for appointments and surgery, although a minority of elective surgery patients face longer waits. In 1992, a study by Fleming et al. (cited in Siciliani & Hurst, 2003, p. 8),[40] 19.4% of German respondents said they'd waited more than 12 weeks for their surgery.

text: In the Commonwealth Fund 2010 Health Policy Survey in 11 Countries, Germany reported some of the lowest waiting times. Germans had the highest percentage of patients reporting their last specialist appointment took less than 4 weeks (83%, v. 80% for the U. S.), and the second-lowest reporting it took 2 months or more (7%, vs. 5% for Switzerland and 9% for the U. S.). 70% of Germans reported that they waited less than 1 month for elective surgery, the highest percentage, and the lowest percentage (0%) reporting it took 4 months or more (The Commonwealth Fund, 2010, pp. 19–20).[41]

text: Both Social Health Insurance (SHI) and privately insured patient experienced low waits, but privately insured patients' waits were even lower. According to the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), the body representing contract physicians and contract psychotherapists at federal level, 56% of Social Health Insurance patients waited 1 week or less, while only 13% waited longer than 3 weeks for a doctor's appointment. 67% of privately insured patients waited 1 week or less, while 7% waited longer than 3 weeks (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, 2016).[42]

text: In a 2009 study to measure waiting time differences between SHI and private insurance, interviewers posed as patients and requested appointments. They told hospitals they could not get a normal referral, which is generally required from an outpatient doctor. Care requested was not immediately urgent, but was care urgent enough to get treated in a couple of weeks. (This may limit generalization to other waits). Mean waiting time was 8.9667 days. Those posing as SHI patients waited longer at some but not all hospitals, and longer on average. Not all hospitals asked their insurance status. However, among those that did, mean waits for SHI patients was 10.5533 days, while privately insured patients' mean waiting time was 8.9667 days. Hospitals asking insurance type had a longer overall mean wait than those not asking for it (Kuchinke, Sauerland & Wübker, 2009).[43]

text: Waits also varied somewhat by region. Waits were longer in eastern Germany according to the KBV (KBV, 2010), as cited in Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators.[44]

text: Germany has a large hospital sector capacity measured in beds. High capacity on top of significant day surgery outside of hospitals (especially for ophthalmology and othopaedic surgery) with doctors paid fee-for-service for activity performed were cited by Siciliani and Hurst as likely factors preventing long waits, despite hospital budget limitations. Activity-based payment for hospitals also is linked to low waiting times (Siciliani & Hurst, 2003, 33-34, 70). Germany introduced Diagnosis-Related Group activity-based payment for hospitals (with a soft cap budget limit) (Busse & Blümel, 2014, pp. 142–148).[45]