Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
December 20, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22478
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Summary
On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and
practices for naming ships. The report was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011). Names for
Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the
direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving
certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been
exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a
person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else.
Some observers in recent years have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for
naming Navy ships. The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states: “Current ship naming policies
and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of
the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”
For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules
can be summarized as follows:
• Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the last 14, 10
were named for past U.S. Presidents, and two for Members of Congress.
• Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states.
• Destroyers are named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
• Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S.
cities and communities.
• Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S.
Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that
were not named for battles.
• San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S.
cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11,
2001.
• Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named
for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers.
• Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships/Afloat Forward Staging Bases
(AFSBs) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance
to U.S. Marines.
The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. Since 1973, at least 14 U.S.
military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states
or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for
battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire.
Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the
naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express
support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office
of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation
Congressional Research Service
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names
have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.
Congressional Research Service
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
July 2012 Navy Report to Congress .......................................................................................... 1
Authority for Naming Ships ...................................................................................................... 1
Navy’s Process for Selecting Names ......................................................................................... 2
Naming Rules for Ship Types .................................................................................................... 3
Evolution Over Time ........................................................................................................... 3
Exceptions ........................................................................................................................... 3
Rules for Ship Types Now Being Procured ......................................................................... 5
State Names That Have Not Been Used in a Long Time ........................................................... 8
Ships Named for Living Persons ............................................................................................... 9
Public’s Role in Naming Ships ................................................................................................ 11
Congress’s Role in Naming Ships ........................................................................................... 12
Congressional Influence on Pending Navy Ship-Naming Decisions ................................ 12
Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions .......................... 13
Past Legislation on Naming Ships .................................................................................... 14
Legislative Activity in 112th Congress ........................................................................................... 16
H.R. 4310/S. 3254 (FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act) ........................................ 16
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 16
Conference ........................................................................................................................ 16
H.R. 5856 (FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act) ....................................................................... 17
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 17
H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 (FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act) .................................. 17
Senate (S. 1867) ................................................................................................................ 17
Conference (H.R. 1540) .................................................................................................... 18
H.Con.Res. 48 (Regarding Naming a Littoral Combat Ship for Ypsilanti, Michigan) ............ 19
H.R. 1945 (Regarding Naming A Naval Vessel For Rafael Peralta) ....................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time .............................. 11
Table 2. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions ............................................................................ 14
Table 3. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments ................................................................ 15
Appendixes
Appendix A. Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy Report to Congress ................................... 21
Appendix B. Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress ................................................................ 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Background
July 2012 Navy Report to Congress
On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and
practices for naming ships.1 The report was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011). (For the text
of Section 1024, see the entry for H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 in the section below entitled “Legislative
Activity in 112th Congress.”) The executive summary of the Navy’s report is reprinted here as
Appendix A.2
Authority for Naming Ships
Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the
Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress.
For most of the 19th century, U.S. law included language explicitly assigning the Secretary of the
Navy the task of naming new Navy ships.3 The reference to the Secretary of the Navy
disappeared from the U.S. Code in 1925.4 The code today (10 U.S.C. §7292) is silent on the issue
of who has the authority to name new Navy ships,5 but the Secretary of the Navy arguably retains
implicit authority, given the location of Section 7292 in subtitle C of Title 10, which covers the
Navy and Marine Corps.
1 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, 73 pp. As of July 27, 2012, the report was
posted at http://www.history.navy.mil/download/Shipnamingreport.pdf.
2 For an article providing a critical perspective on the Navy’s report, see Norman Polmar, “Report on Ship Naming
Falls Short,” Seapower, October 2012: 6-7.
3 A law approved in 1819 (Res. of March 3, 1819, §1, 3 Stat. 538, No. 7) stated “That all of the ships of the navy of the
United States, now building, or hereafter to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of
the President of the United States” in accordance with rules specifying that ships of the first class were to be named
after states of the Union, and second and third class ships were to be named, respectively, after rivers and principal
cities and towns. A law approved in 1858 (Act of June 12, 1858, c. 153, §5, 11 Stat. 319) provided a similar rule for
“steamships of the navy,” except that third-class vessels (those with fewer than twenty guns) were to be named by the
Secretary of the Navy as the President may direct, taking care that no two vessels in the Navy shall bear the same
name.” §1531 of the Revised Statutes of 1873-1874, citing the 1819 and 1858 laws, states: “The vessels of the Navy
shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President” in accordance with rules similar to
those above, varying slightly depending on whether the vessel was a sailing ship or a steamship. In 1898, Congress
passed a law (Act of May 4, 1898, c. 234, 30 Stat. 390 [appropriations for the naval services]) prescribing rules for the
naming of “first-class battle ships and monitors,” which specified that these were to be named after States and “shall
not be named for any city, place, or persons until the names of the States, shall have been exhausted.” The provision
did not explicitly state whose duty it would be to assign names to vessels. Congress repealed this provision in 1908 as it
pertained to monitors, permitting those vessels to be named “as the President may direct.” (Act of May 13, 1908, c.
166, 35 Stat. 159.)
4 The reference to the Secretary of the Navy found in §1531 of the Revised Statutes of 1873-1874 (see previous
footnote) is absent from the U.S. Code of 1925, which covers Navy vessel names in Title 34, §461-463.
5 34 U.S.C. §461-463 of the 1925 U.S. Code (see previous footnote) were later recodified as 10 U.S.C. §7292. 10
U.S.C. §7292 provides that battleships are to be “named for a State. However, if the names of all the States are in use, a
battleship may be named for a city, place, or person.” It specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to “change the
name of any vessel bought for the Navy,” §7292(c), but does not explicitly assign responsibility for ensuring that no
two vessels have the same name, §7292(a), or for naming battleships, §7292(b).
Congressional Research Service
1
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Navy’s Process for Selecting Names
In discussing its name-selection process, the Naval History and Heritage Command—the Navy’s
in-house office of professional historians—cites the above-mentioned laws and states:
As with many other things, the procedures and practices involved in Navy ship naming are as
much, if not more, products of evolution and tradition than of legislation. As we have seen,
the names for new ships are personally decided by the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary
can rely on many sources to help him reach his decisions. Each year, the Naval Historical
Center compiles primary and alternate ship name recommendations and forwards these to the
Chief of Naval Operations by way of the chain of command. These recommendations are the
result of research into the history of the Navy and by suggestions submitted by service
members, Navy veterans, and the public. Ship name source records at the Historical Center
reflect the wide variety of name sources that have been used in the past, particularly since
World War I. Ship name recommendations are conditioned by such factors as the name
categories for ship types now being built, as approved by the Secretary of the Navy; the
distribution of geographic names of ships of the Fleet; names borne by previous ships which
distinguished themselves in service; names recommended by individuals and groups; and
names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased members of the Navy and Marine
Corps who have been honored for heroism in war or for extraordinary achievement in peace.
In its final form, after consideration at the various levels of command, the Chief of Naval
Operations signs the memorandum recommending names for the current year’s building
program and sends it to the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary considers these
nominations, along with others he receives as well as his own thoughts in this matter. At
appropriate times, he selects names for specific ships and announces them.
While there is no set time for assigning a name, it is customarily done before the ship is
christened. The ship’s sponsor—the person who will christen the ship—is also selected and
invited by the Secretary. In the case of ships named for individuals, an effort is made to
identify the eldest living direct female descendant of that individual to perform the role of
ship’s sponsor. For ships with other name sources, it is customary to honor the wives of
senior naval officers or public officials.6
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states:
Once a type/class naming convention [i.e., a general rule or guideline for how ships of a
certain type or class are to be named] is established, Secretaries can rely on many sources to
help in the final selection of a ship name. For example, sitting Secretaries can solicit ideas
and recommendations from either the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) or the Commandant
of the Marine Corps (CMC), or both. They can also task the Naval Heritage and History
Command to compile primary and alternate ship name recommendations that are the result of
research into the history of the Navy’s battle force or particular ship names. Secretaries also
routinely receive formal suggestions for ship names from concerned citizens, active and
retired service members, or members of Congress. Finally, Congress can enact provisions in
Public Law that express the sense of the entire body about new ship naming conventions or
specific ship names. Regardless of the origin of the recommendations, however, the final
selection of a ship’s name is the Secretary’s to make, informed and guided by his own
thoughts, counsel, and preferences. At the appropriate time—normally sometime after the
6 Naval History and Heritage Command, “Ship Naming in the United States Navy,” accessed online on February 15,
2012, at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm.
Congressional Research Service
2
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
ship has been either authorized or appropriated by Congress and before its keel laying or
christening—the Secretary records his decision with a formal naming announcement.7
Naming Rules for Ship Types
Evolution Over Time
Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time.
Attack submarines, for example, were once named for fish, then later for cities, and most recently
for states, while cruisers were once named for cities, then later for states,8 and most recently for
battles. State names, to cite another example, were given to battleships, then later to nuclear-
powered cruisers and ballistic missile submarines, and are now being given to attack submarines.
The Naval History and Heritage Command states that while the Navy “has attempted to be
systematic in naming its ships, like all institutions it has been subject to evolutionary change, and
the name sources of the Navy’s ships have not been immune to this change.”9 The July 2012
Navy report to Congress states that “US Navy ship-naming policies, practices, and ‘traditions’ are
not fixed; they evolve constantly over time.”10 The report also states that “Just as [ship] type
naming conventions change over time to accommodate technological change as well as choices
made by Secretaries, they also change over time as every Secretary makes their own
interpretation of the original naming convention.”11
Exceptions
There have been numerous exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the
purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it
7 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 3. At the end of this quoted passage, there
is a footnote (number 3) that states:
Although there is no hard and fast rule, Secretaries most often name a ship after Congress has
appropriated funds for its construction or approved its future construction in some way—such as
authorization of either block buys or multi-year procurements of a specific number of ships. There
are special cases, however, when Secretaries use their discretion to name ships before formal
Congressional approval, such as when Secretary John Lehman announced the namesake for a new
class of Aegis guided missile destroyers would be Admiral Arleigh Burke, several years before the
ship was either authorized or appropriated.
In connection with the above passage, the lead ship of the DDG-51 class of destroyers was named for Arleigh
Burke on November 5, 1982, about two years before the ship was authorized and fully funded. (Congress
authorized the ship in the FY1985 National Defense Authorization Act [H.R. 5167/P.L. 98-525 of October
19, 1984], and fully funded the ship in H.J.Res. 648/P.L. 98-473 of October 12, 1984, a joint resolution
making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1985, and for other purposes.)
8 Cruisers named for states were nuclear-powered cruisers.
9 Naval History and Heritage Command, “Ship Naming in the United States Navy,” accessed online on February 15,
2012, at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm.
10 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 10.
11 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
3
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
to be named for something else.12 The July 2012 report to Congress cites exceptions to ship
naming rules dating back to the earliest days of the republic, and states that “a Secretary’s
discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy’s oldest ship-
naming traditions.”13 The report argues that exceptions made for the purpose of naming ships for
Presidents or Members of Congress have occurred frequently enough that, rather than being
exceptions, they constitute a “special cross-type naming convention” for Presidents and Members
of Congress.14 (This CRS report continues to note, as exceptions to basic class naming rules,
instances where ships other than aircraft carriers have been named for Presidents or Members of
Congress.)
Some observers in recent years have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for
naming Navy ships.15 Such observers might cite, for example, the three-ship Seawolf (SSN-21)
class of attack submarines—Seawolf (SSN-21), Connecticut (SSN-22), and Jimmy Carter (SSN-
23)—which were named for a fish, a state, and a President, respectively, reflecting no apparent
class naming rule.16 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states: “Current ship naming policies
12 Ohio (SSBN-726) class ballistic missile submarines, for example, were named for states, but one (SSBN-730) was
named for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington, who died in office in 1983. Los Angeles (SSN-688) class
attack submarines were named for cities, but one (SSN-709) was named for Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the longtime
director of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers were named for battles, but one
(CG-51) was named for Thomas S. Gates, a former Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense.
13 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 7.
14 The report states that
the decision of the [Navy’s 1969] Riera Panel [on Navy ship names] to remove members of
Congress from the destroyer naming convention resulted in a now four-decade old, bipartisan
practice of honoring members of Congress with long records of support to the US military with
ships names selected and spread across a variety of ship types and classes. Orthodox Traditionalists
decry this development as an unwarranted intrusion of “politics” in Navy ship naming practice. But
this is a selective interpretation of the historical record. Secretaries of the Navy have been naming
ships for members of Congress for nearly a century in order to honor those extraordinary elected
leaders who have helped to make the Navy-Marine Corps Team the most powerful naval force in
history.
Like many Pragmatic Secretaries of the Navy before him, Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus
endorses and subscribes to this special naming convention....
Objections to Secretary Mabus’s decision to name a ship in honor of Congressman Murtha
generally fall into one of four categories. The first are Orthodox Traditionalists who naturally
complain that his selection represents a corruption of the LPD 17 naming convention. However, as
outlined above, the choice is perfectly consistent with the special cross-type naming convention
that honors Legislative Branch members who have been closely identified with military and naval
affairs, which has been endorsed by Secretaries from both parties and Congress....
In summary, while USS John P. Murtha represents an exception to the established LPD 17
[amphibious ship] class naming convention, it is completely consistent with the special cross-type
naming convention for honoring famous American elected leaders, including both Presidents and
members of Congress with records of long-term service and support to the US armed forces.
(Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the
Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp.
28-30. Italics as in original. See also pp. 37, 41, 42, 44, 47, 68, and 73.)
15 See, for example, Donald R. Bouchoux, “The Name Game,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, March 2000: 110-111;
Norman Polmar, “Misnaming Aircraft Carriers,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September 2006: 30-31; Norman
Polmar, “Misnaming Navy Ships (Again),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2009: 89; and Norman Polmar,
“There’s a Lot in a Name,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2012: 88-89.
16 See, for example, Norman Polmar, “There’s a Lot in a Name,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2012: 88-89,
which characterizes the naming of the Seawolf class as a “fiasco.” For the Navy’s discussion of the Seawolf class
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of
the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”17
Rules for Ship Types Now Being Procured
For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules
(and exceptions thereto) are summarized below. The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses
current naming rules (and exceptions thereto) at length.
Aircraft Carriers
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that “while carrier names are still ‘individually
considered,’ they are now generally named in honor of past US Presidents.”18 Twelve of the 14
most recently named aircraft carriers (those with hull numbers 67 through 80) have been named
for U.S. Presidents (10 ships) and Members of Congress (2 ships).
The Navy on May 29, 2011, announced that the aircraft carrier CVN-79 would be named for
President John F. Kennedy.19
The Navy on December 1, 2012, announced that the aircraft carrier CVN-80 would be named
Enterprise. The Navy made the announcement on the same day that it deactivated the 51-year-old
aircraft carrier CVN-65, also named Enterprise.20 CVN-65 was the eighth Navy ship named
Enterprise; CVN-80 is to be the ninth. CVN-80 is currently scheduled for procurement in
FY2018, a budget that Congress is to consider in 2017. Naming a ship approximately five years
before it is scheduled to be authorized is unusual. The closest comparable case, at least from
recent years, may be the destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000), whose name was announced by
President Bill Clinton on July 4, 2000.21 At the time of that announcement, Congress was
considering the Navy’s proposed FY2001 budget, under which DDG-1000 was scheduled for
authorization in FY2005, a budget that Congress would consider in 2004, which was then about
four years in the future.22 Congress has not yet provided any procurement or advance
(...continued)
names, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the
Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 46-47.
17 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
18 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 37.
19 DOD News Release No. 449-11, May 29, 2011, entitled “Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy,”
accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14523. CVN-79 will be the second
aircraft carrier named for Kennedy. The first, CV-67, was the last conventionally powered carrier procured for the
Navy. CV-67 was procured in FY1963, entered service in 1968, and was decommissioned in 2007.
20 “Enterprise, Navy’s First Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier, Inactivated,” Navy News Service, December 1, 2012;
Hugh Lessig, “Navy Retires One Enterprise, Will Welcome Another,” Newport News Daily Press, December 2, 2012.
21 In response to a request from CRS for examples in recent years of ships that were named well in advance of when
they were authorized, the Navy on December 7, 2012, sent an e-mail citing the case of the Zumwalt and two other ships
(DDG-51 and LPD-17) whose naming lead times were substantially less than that of the Zumwalt.
22 The FY2006 budget submission subsequently deferred the scheduled procurement of DDG-1000 to FY2007. DDG-
1000 and the second ship in the class, DDG-1001, were procured in FY2007 using split funding (i.e., two-year
incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
procurement (AP) funding for CVN-80 (the initial increment of AP funding is scheduled for
FY2016, a budget that Congress will consider in 2015), and CVN-80 is not covered under a
multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement that would represent a fairly strong government
commitment to the eventual procurement of the ship.23 If CVN-80, like most Navy ships, had
instead been named at about the time of its scheduled authorization, or later, it might have been
named by the Secretary of the Navy who will serve under the President to be elected in
November 2016. The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that
Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus values the ability to consider [aircraft] carrier names on
an individual, case‐by‐case basis, for two reasons. First, it will allow a future Secretary to
name a future fleet aircraft carrier for someone or something other than a former President.
Indeed, Secretary Mabus has a particular name in mind. With the scheduled
decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US
Navy history besides USS Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register.
Secretary Mabus believes this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the Enterprise’s
storied name on a future carrier.24
In addition, if CVN-80 had been named at about the time of its scheduled authorization, or later,
the 113th and 114th Congresses would have had an opportunity to express views concerning
potential names for the ship.
Prior to the naming of CVN-80, the most recent carrier that was not named for a President or
Member of Congress was the second of these 14 carriers, Nimitz (CVN-68), which was procured
in FY1967.25
Attack Submarines
Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states. An exception occurred on
January 8, 2009, when then-Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that SSN-785, the
12th ship in the class, would be named for former Senator John Warner.26
23 For more on MYP, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy Contracting in Defense
Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz.
24 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 37. See also the discussion in footnote 7.
25 CVN-68 was named for Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, a five-star admiral who commanded U.S. and allied forces in
the Pacific in World War II. Nimitz died in 1966, the same year that Congress considered the FY1967 defense budget
that funded the procurement of CVN-68.
26 DOD News Release No. 016-09, January 8, 2009, entitled “Navy Names Virginia Class Submarine USS John
Warner,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12431. Warner served as a
sailor in World War II, as a Marine in the Korean War, as Under Secretary of the Navy in 1969-1972, and as Secretary
of the Navy in 1972-1974. Warner served as a Senator from January 2, 1979, to January 3, 2009. He was a longtime
Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was for several years the chairman of that committee. Winter’s
January 8, 2009, announcement assigned a name to SSN-785 eleven months before the ship was fully funded. (The ship
was fully funded by the FY2010 Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations act [H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118], which
was signed into law on December 19, 2009.) Naming a ship almost a year before it is funded is unusual. Winter stepped
down as Secretary of the Navy on March 13, 2009. If SSN-785 had not been named for Warner, the 111th Congress
might have had an opportunity to consider whether CVN-79, the next Ford-class carrier, should be named for Warner.
One observer has argued that in light of Warner’s record and past traditions for naming Navy ships, “he should be
honored by an aircraft carrier (two CVNs [nuclear-powered aircraft carriers] have been named for Members of
Congress) or possibly the lead ship for the planned class of CG(X) cruisers—but not a submarine.” (Norman Polmar,
“Misnaming Navy Ships (Again),” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2009: 89.)
Congressional Research Service
6
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Destroyers
Destroyers traditionally have been named for famous U.S. naval leaders and distinguished heroes.
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses this tradition and states more specifically that
destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard,
including Secretaries of the Navy. An exception occurred on May 7, 2012, when the Navy
announced that it was naming DDG-116, an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, for a living
person, Thomas Hudner.27
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) were at first named for U.S. mid-tier cities, small towns, and other
U.S. communities.28 The naming convention for LCSs was later adjusted to regionally important
U.S. cities and communities. An exception occurred on February 10, 2012, when the Navy
announced that it was naming LCS-10 for former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.29
LHA-6 Class Amphibious Assault Ships
Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a
prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles. The Navy
announced on June 27, 2008, that the first LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship would be named
America, a name previously used for an aircraft carrier (CV-66) that served in the Navy from
1965 to 1996. The Navy announced on May 4, 2012, that LHA-7, the second ship in the class,
would be named Tripoli, the location of famous Marine battles in the First Barbary War.30
LPD-17 Class Amphibious Ships
San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and
communities (with major being defined as being one of the top three population centers in a
state), and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001. An exception occurred on
April 23, 2010, when the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-26, the 10th ship in the class,
for the late Representative John P. Murtha.31
27 DOD News Release No. 352-12, May 7, 2012, entitled “Secretary of the Navy Announces DDG 116 to Be Named
Thomas Hudner,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15252.
28 The Navy named LCS-1 and LCS-2 Freedom and Independence, respectively, after multiple U.S. cities with these
names.
29 DOD News Release No. 096-12, February 10, 2012, entitled “Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship Gabrielle
Giffords,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15055. For the Navy’s
discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for
Naming the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 33-34.
30 DOD News Release No. 347-12, May 4, 2012, entitled “Secretary of the Navy Announces LHA 7 Will Be Named
USS Tripoli,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15247. The name
Tripoli was previously used for an amphibious assault ship (LPH-10) that served in the Navy from 1966 to 1995, and
for an escort carrier (CVE-64) that served in the Navy from 1943 to 1946.
31 DOD News Release No. 329-10, April 23, 2010, entitled “Navy Names Amphibious Ship For Congressman John
Murtha,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13478. For the Navy’s
discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for
Naming the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 28-30.
Congressional Research Service
7
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
TAKE-1 Class Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ships
The Navy’s 14 Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for
famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers. The Navy announced on October 9, 2009,
that the 13th ship in the class was being named for the civil rights activist Medgar Evers.32 The
Navy announced on May 18, 2011, that the 14th ship in the class would be named for civil rights
activist Cesar Chavez.33
Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs)
Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs), which until May 2011 were being procured by the Army as
well as by the Navy, were at first named for American traits and values. In December 2009, the
naming convention for JHSVs was changed to small U.S. cities. At some point between
December 2010 and October 2011, it was adjusted to small U.S. cities and counties.34
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ships/Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSBs)
The Navy’s four planned Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships—the last two of which the Navy
wants to build to a modified configuration so that they would serve as Afloat Forward Staging
Bases (AFSBs)—are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S.
Marines. On January 4, 2012, the Secretary of the Navy announced that the first three MLPs were
being named Montford Point, John Glenn, and Lewis B. Puller.35
State Names That Have Not Been Used in a Long Time
It has been a long time since ships named for certain states were last in commissioned service
with the Navy as combat assets. While there is no rule requiring the Navy, in selecting state
names for ships, to choose states for which the most time has passed since a ship named for the
state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, advocates of naming a
ship for a certain state may choose to point out, among other things, the length of time that has
transpired since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a
combat asset.
32 DOD News Release No. 788-09, October 9, 2009, entitled “Navy Names Ship After Civil Rights Activist Medgar
Evers,” accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13036. For the Navy’s
discussion of this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for
Naming the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 21-22.
33 DOD News Release No. 420-11, May 18, 2011, entitled “Navy Names Ship For Civil Rights Activist Cesar Chavez,”
accessed July 27, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14504. For the Navy’s discussion of
this naming choice, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the
Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 22-24.
34 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 18-19.
35 DOD News Release No. 007-12, January 4, 2012, entitled “Navy Names First Three Landing Platform Ships,”
accessed January 6, 2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14991. For the Navy’s discussion
of these naming choices, see Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming
the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 39-40.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
In its announcement of April 13, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack
submarines SSNs 786 through 790 for Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and South Dakota,
respectively, the Department of Defense stated, “None of the five states has had a ship named for
it for more than 49 years. The most recent to serve was the battleship Indiana, which was
decommissioned in October 1963.”36 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states: “Before
deciding on which names to select [for the five submarines], Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus
asked for a list of State names that had been absent the longest from the US Naval Register.... ”37
In its announcement of November 19, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack
submarine SSN-791 for Delaware, the Department of Defense quoted Secretary Mabus as saying,
“It has been too long since there has been a USS Delaware in the fleet.... ”38
A CRS review of online Navy ship name records39 suggests that there is a small handful of states
for which the most time—roughly 90 years—has passed since a ship named for the state has been
in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is
currently under construction. These states appear to include, but may not be limited to, the
following, which are presented in alphabetical order: Kansas, Montana, Oregon, and Vermont.
(This group also included Illinois and Delaware until the Navy’s naming announcements of April
13, 2012, and November 19, 2012, respectively.) There are additional states for which lesser—but
still substantial—amounts of time have passed since a ship named for the state has been in
commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is
currently under construction.
Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. The Navy stated in
February 2012 that
The Navy named several ships for living people (ex. George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc.)
in the early years of our Republic. The Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC)
believes that the last ship to be named by the Navy in honor of a living person prior to [the
aircraft carrier] CARL VINSON (CVN-70) was the brig JEFFERSON (launched in April
1814). Between 1814 and November 18, 1973, when President Nixon announced the naming
of CARL VINSON,40 NHHC does not believe that any ships had been named for a living
person by the Navy as NHHC does not have records that would indicate such.41
36 DOD News Release No. 264-12, April 13, 2012, entitled “Navy Names Five New Submarines,” accessed April 25,
2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15180.
37 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 48.
38 DOD News Release No. 914-12, November 19, 2012, entitled “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names the Next
Virginia-Class Submarine USS Delaware with Dr. Jill Biden as the Sponsor,” accessed November 19, 2012, at
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15694.
39 The online records reviewed by CRS were the Naval Vessel Register (http://www.nvr.navy.mil/) and the Dictionary
of American Naval Fighting Ships (http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html).
40 Although President Nixon announced on November 18, 1973 that CVN-70 would be named for Carl Vinson, as
shown in Table 1, the name apparently was officially given to the ship on January 18, 1974.
41 Navy information paper dated February 28, 2012, provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, March 1,
2012.
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress, noting a case from 1900 that was not included in the
above passage, states that
the practice of naming ships in honor of deserving Americans or naval leaders while they are
still alive can be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War. At the time, with little
established history or tradition, the young Continental Navy looked to honor those who were
fighting so hard to earn America’s freedom. Consequently, George Washington had no less
than five ships named for him before his death; John Adams and James Madison, three
apiece; John Hancock, two; and Benjamin Franklin, one.
The practice of naming ships after living persons was relatively commonplace up through
1814, when a US Navy brig was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson. However, after the
War of 1812, with the US Navy older and more established, and with the list of famous
Americans and notable naval heroes growing ever longer, the practice of naming ships after
living persons fell into disuse. Indeed, the only exception over the next 150 years came in
1900, when the Navy purchased its first submarine from its still living inventor, John Philip
Holland, and Secretary of the Navy John D. Long named her USS Holland (SS 1) in his
honor....
[In the early 1970s], however, Department of the Navy leaders were considering the name
for CVN 70. Secretary of the Navy John Warner knew the 93rd Congress had introduced no
less than three bills or amendments (none enacted) urging that CVN 70 be named for in
honor of Carl Vinson, who served in the House for 50 years and was known as the “Father of
the Two-Ocean Navy.” Although Secretary Warner felt Congressman Vinson was more than
worthy of a ship name, the former Congressman was still alive. Naming a ship for this giant
of naval affairs would therefore violate a 160-year old tradition. After considering the pros
and cons of doing so, Secretary Warner asked President Richard Nixon’s approval to name
CVN 70 for the 90-year old statesman. President Nixon readily agreed. Indeed, he personally
announced the decision on January 18, 1974....
In hindsight, rather than this decision being a rare exception, it signaled a return to the
Continental Navy tradition of occasionally honoring famous living persons with a ship name.
Since then, and before the appointment of current Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus,
Secretaries of the Navy have occasionally chosen to follow this new, “old tradition,” naming
ships in honor of still living former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W.
Bush, and Gerald R. Ford; Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze; Navy Admirals Hyman G.
Rickover, Arleigh Burke, and Wayne E. Meyer; Senators John C. Stennis and John Warner;
and famous entertainer Bob Hope. Moreover, it is important to note that three of these well-
known Americans—Gerald R. Ford, John C. Stennis, and Bob Hope—were so honored after
Congress enacted provisions in Public Laws urging the Navy to do so. By its own actions,
then, Congress has acknowledged the practice of occasionally naming ships for living
persons, if not outright approved of it.
In other words, while naming ships after living persons remains a relatively rare
occurrence—about three per decade since 1970—it is now an accepted but sparingly used
practice for Pragmatic Secretaries [of the Navy] of both parties. For them, occasionally
honoring an especially deserving member of Congress, US naval leader, or famous American
with a ship name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that their life’s work is
both recognized and honored by America’s Navy-Marine Corps Team, and that their spirit
will accompany and inspire the Team in battle, is sometimes exactly the right thing to do.42
42 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 7-9.
Congressional Research Service
10
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
As shown in Table 1, since the naming of CVN-70 for Carl Vinson in 1973, at least 14 U.S.
military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
Three of the 14 were announced in the first five months of 2012.
Table 1. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time
Year ship
Age of
Fiscal
entered
Date
person when
year ship
or is to
Hull
name
name was
was
enter
Ship type
number Ship
name
announced
announced
procured
service
Aircraft carrier
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
1/18/1974
90
FY1974 1982
Attack submarine
SSN-709
Hyman G. Rickover
5/9/1983
83
FY1974 1984
Destroyer DDG-51
Arleigh Burke
11/5/1982
81
FY1985 1991
Aircraft carrier
CVN-74
John C. Stennis
6/23/1988a
86
FY1988 1995
Sealift ship
TAKR-300 Bob Hope
1/27/1994
90
FY1993 1998
Aircraft carrier
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
2/2/1995
83
FY1995 2003
Attack submarine
SSN-23
Jimmy Carter
4/8/1998
73
FY1996b 2005
Destroyer DDG-94
Nitze
1/10/2001
93
FY1999 2005
Aircraft carrier
CVN-77
George H.W. Bush
12/9/2002
78
FY2001 2009
Destroyer DDG-108
Wayne E. Meyer
11/29/2006
80
FY2004 2009
Attack submarine
SSN-785
John Warner
1/8/2009
81
FY2010
2015
Mobile Landing Platform Ship
MLP-2
John Glenn
1/4/2012
90
FY2011
2014
Littoral Combat Ship
LCS-10
Gabrielle Giffords
2/10/2012
41
FY2012
2015
Destroyer DDG-116
Thomas Hudner
5/7/2012
87
FY2012
2017
Source: Compiled by CRS. Source for dates when names were announced for CVN-70 through DDG-108:
Navy Office of Legislative Affairs email to CRS, May 1, 2012.
a. This was the date that President Reagan announced that the ship would be named for Stennis. The Navy
officially named the ship for Stennis on December 19, 1988.
b. SSN-23 was original y procured in FY1992. Its procurement was suspended, and then reinstated in FY1996.
Public’s Role in Naming Ships
Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states
or cities, for earlier U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served),
for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire. Citizens with
such an interest sometimes contact the Navy, the Department of Defense, or Congress seeking
support for their proposals. An October 2008 news report, for example, suggested that a letter-
writing campaign by New Hampshire elementary school students that began in January 2004 was
instrumental in the Navy’s decision in August 2004 to name a Virginia-class submarine after the
state.43 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states:
In addition to receiving input and recommendations from the President and Congress, every
Secretary of the Navy receives numerous requests from service members, citizens, interest
groups, or individual members of Congress who want to name a ship in honor of a particular
hometown, or State, or place, or hero, or famous ship. This means the “nomination” process
43 Dean Lohmeyer, “Students Who Helped Name the Navy’s Newest Sub Tour State’s Namesake,” Navy News Service,
October 25, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
is often fiercely contested as differing groups make the case that “their” ship name is the
most fitting choice for a Secretary to make.44
Members of the public may also express their opposition to an announced naming decision. The
July 2012 Navy report to Congress cites and discusses five recent examples of ship-naming
decisions that were criticized by some observers: the destroyer DDG-1002 (named for President
Lyndon Johnson), the Littoral Combat Ship LCS-10 (named for former Representative Gabrielle
Giffords), the amphibious ship LPD-26 (named for late Representative John P. Murtha), the
auxiliary ship TAKE-13 (named for Medgar Evers), and the auxiliary ship TAKE-14 (named for
Cesar Chavez).45
Congress’s Role in Naming Ships
Congressional Influence on Pending Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named,46 and has influenced or
may have influenced pending Navy decisions on the naming of certain ships, including but not
limited to the following:
• One source states that “[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named
prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional
pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H.G. Rickover ([instead,] the
[attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral).”47
• There was a friendly rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported
naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for President Truman and those who
supported naming it for President Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a
decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier
(CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan.48
• One press report suggests that the decision to name CVN-77 for President
George H. W. Bush may have been influenced by a congressional suggestion.49
• Section 1012 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of the
44 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 12-13.
45 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 15.
46 For example, the 1819 and 1858 laws cited in footnote 3 set forth naming rules for certain kinds of ships. Today, 10
U.S.C. §7292(b) still requires that battleships (which the United States has not built since World War II) be named after
states.
47 The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, op cit, p. 113. See also p. 70 and p. 86.
48 Patrick Pexton, “Clinton Compromise: Carriers Truman And Reagan,” Navy Times, February 13, 1995: 19. See also
“Navy Announces Aircraft Carrier To Be Named For President Truman,” Associated Press, February 2, 1995. CVN-75
had been preliminarily named the United States.
49 The article, which reported on the ship’s official naming ceremony, states: “[Senator] Warner recalled that he first
suggested naming a carrier in the senior Bush’s honor last year [i.e., in 2001], during a ceremony in Newport News to
christen the [previous] carrier Ronald Reagan.” (Dale Eisman, “Navy Names New Aircraft Carrier For Elder Bush,”
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, December 10, 2002.)
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Congress that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald
R. Ford. The Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be
named Gerald R. Ford.
• In the 111th Congress, H.Res. 1505, introduced on July 1, 2010, expressed the
sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should
name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of John William Finn. The
measure was not acted on after being referred to the House Armed Services
Committee. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named John Finn.50
• Section 1012 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L.
112-81 of December 31, 2011) expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary
of the Navy is encouraged to name the next available naval vessel after Rafael
Peralta. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an Arleigh
Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named Rafael Peralta.51
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that
every Secretary of the Navy, regardless of point of view [on how to name ships], is subject to
a variety of outside influences when considering the best names to choose. The first among
these comes from the President of the United States, under whose direction any Secretary
works...
Secretaries of the Navy must also consider the input of Congress.... Given the vital role
Congress plays in maintaining the Navy-Marine Corps Team, any Secretary is sure to respect
and consider its input when considering ships names.
Sometimes, the Secretary must also balance or contend with differences of opinion between
the President and Congress.52
The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a
Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to
make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation relating to ship names (see below).
Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Congress can pass legislation regarding a ship-naming decision that has been announced by the
Navy. Such legislation can express Congress’s views regarding the Navy’s announced decision,
and if Congress so desires, can also suggest or direct the Navy to take some action. The following
are two examples of such legislation:
• H.Res. 1022 of the 111th Congress is an example of a measure reflecting support
for an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This measure, introduced on
50 DOD News Release No. 109-12, February 15, 2012, entitled “Navy Names Five New Ships,” accessed July 27,
2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15065.
51 DOD News Release No. 109-12, February 15, 2012, entitled “Navy Names Five New Ships,” accessed July 27,
2012, at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15065.
52 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 11-12.
Congressional Research Service
13
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
January 20, 2010, and passed by the House on February 4, 2010 (see Appendix
B), congratulates the Navy on its decision to name a naval ship for Medgar
Evers.
• H.Con.Res. 312 of the 97th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to
reflect disagreement with an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This
measure expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class
attack submarine Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a
nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named Corpus Christi. (Los Angeles-
class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for
Corpus Christi, TX.) H.Con.Res. 312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was
referred to the Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of the
House Armed Services Committee on April 28, 1982. On May 10, 1982, the
Navy modified the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi.
Past Legislation on Naming Ships
Table 2 shows recent enacted provisions regarding the names of Navy ships. All of these
measures expressed the sense of the Congress about how a Navy ship should be named.
Table 2. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions
Fiscal
Year Public
Law Bill
Section Ship
Name(s)
2012
P.L. 112-81
H.R. 1540
1012
the next available naval vessel
Rafael Peralta
2011
P.L. 111-383
H.R. 6523
1022
a combat vessel
Father Vincent Capodanno
2007 P.L.
109-364
H.R. 5122
1012 CVN-78
Gerald R. Ford
2001 P.L.
106-398
H.R. 4205
1012 CVN-77
Lexington
1999 P.L.
105-261
H.R. 3616
1014
an LPD-17 class ship
Clifton B. Cates
1996 P.L.
104-106
S. 1124
1018 LHD-7
Iwo Jima
1996 P.L.
104-106
S. 1124
1018
LPD-17 class amphibious ships Marine Corps battles or members of
Marine Corps
1996 P.L.
104-106
S. 1124
1019
an appropriate ship
Joseph Vittori
1991 P.L.
101-510
H.R. 4739
1426
the next DDG-51
Samuel S. Stratton
1989 P.L.
100-456
H.R. 4481
1221
the next SSBN
Melvin Price
1989 P.L.
100-456
H.R. 4481
1222
an appropriate ship
Bob Hope
1989 P.L.
100-202
H.J.Res. 395 8138
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
Source: Prepared by CRS. All of these provisions expressed the sense of the Congress about how a Navy ship
should be named.
Table 3 shows examples of proposed bills and amendments regarding the names of Navy ships
going back to the 93rd Congress. Some of these measures expressed the sense of the Congress
about how a Navy ship should be named, while others would mandate a certain name for a ship.
Although few of these measures were acted on after being referred to committee, they all signaled
congressional interest in how certain ships should be named, and thus may have influenced Navy
decisions on these matters.
Congressional Research Service
14
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Table 3. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments
[Congress] and Bill
Ship
Proposed name(s)
[112th] H.Con.Res. 48
a Littoral Combat Ship
Ypsilanti
[112th] H.R. 1945
next available naval vessel
Rafael Peralta
[111th] H.Res. 1505
next appropriate naval ship
John William Finn
[111th] H.Res. 330
an appropriate ship
Clifton B. Cates
[111th] H.Con.Res. 83
CVN-79 or CVN-80
Barry M. Goldwater
[109th] S. 2766
CVN-78
Gerald R. Ford
[107th] H.Con.Res. 294
a new naval vessel
Bluejacket
[106th] S.Con.Res. 84
CVN-77
Lexington
[105th] S.Amdt. 2812 to S. 2057
LPD-17 class ship
Clifton B. Cates
[104th] H.J.Res. 61
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] H.R. 445
CVN-76
Harry Truman
[104th] S.Con.Res. 62
SSN-774
South Dakota
[104th] S.J.Res. 17
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LHD-7
Iwo Jima
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LPD-17 class ships
famous Marine Corps battles or
heroes
[104th] S.Amdt. 4350 to S. 1745
a SSN-774 class submarine
South Dakota
[103rd] H.R. 5283
an appropriate ship
Joseph Vittori
[102nd] H.Con.Res. 354
a guided missile cruiser
Pearl Harbor
[102nd] H.R. 6115
CVN-76
Harry S Truman
[100th] H.Amdt. 614 to H.R. 4264
next SSBN-726 class submarine
Melvin Price
deployed after enactment
[100th] S.Amdt. 1354 to H.J.Res. 395
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
[98th] H.Res. 99
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.Con.Res. 312
a nonlethal naval vessela
Corpus Christia
[97th] H.Res. 174
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.R. 4977
CVN-72
Hyman G. Rickover
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 386
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 387
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.J.Res. 831
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
Source: Prepared by CRS.
a. H.Con.Res. 312 expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine
Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named
Corpus Christi. (Los Angeles-class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for
Corpus Christi, TX.) H.Con.Res. 312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was referred to the Seapower
and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on April 28,
1982. On May 10, 1982, the Navy changed the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi.
Congressional Research Service
15
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Legislative Activity in 112th Congress
H.R. 4310/S. 3254 (FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act)
Senate
On December 3, 2012, as part of its consideration of S. 3254, the Senate agreed to by voice vote
S.Amdt. 3054, the text of which is as follows:
Sec. 1024. NOTICE TO CONGRESS AND WAIT ON PROPOSALS TO NAME NAVAL
VESSELS.
Section 7292 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
“(d) The Secretary of the Navy may not announce or implement any proposal to name a
vessel of the Navy until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report
setting forth such proposal.”.
Conference
Section 1018 of the conference report (H.Rept. 112-705, filed December 18, 2012) on H.R. 4310
states:
SEC. 1018. NOTICE TO CONGRESS FOR THE REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO NAME
NAVAL VESSELS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Navy traces its ancestry to October 13, 1775, when an Act of the Continental
Congress authorized the first vessel of a navy for the United Colonies. Vessels of the
Continental Navy were named for early patriots and military heroes, Federal institutions,
colonial cities, and positive character traits representative of naval and military virtues.
(2) An Act of Congress on March 3, 1819, made the Secretary of the Navy responsible for
assigning names to vessels of the Navy. Traditional sources for vessel names customarily
encompassed such categories as geographic locations in the United States; historic sites,
battles, and ships; naval and military heroes and leaders; and noted individuals who made
distinguished contributions to United States national security.
(3) These customs and traditions provide appropriate and necessary standards for the naming
of vessels of the Navy.
(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Section 7292 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(d)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may not announce or implement any proposal to name a
vessel of the Navy until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report
setting forth such proposal.
Congressional Research Service
16
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
‘‘(2) Each report under this subsection shall describe the justification for the proposal
covered by such report in accordance with the standards referred to in section 1024(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amendment made by this section shall go into
effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Regarding Section 1018, the Joint Explanatory Statement for the conference report states:
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1024) that would identify appropriate and
necessary standards for the naming of vessels of the Navy, and would amend section 7292 of
title 10, United States Code, by adding a new subsection that would prevent the Secretary of
the Navy from announcing or implementing any proposal to name a vessel of the Navy until
30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that justifies how such a naming
proposal follows the appropriate and necessary standards for the naming of vessels of the
Navy set forth in this Act.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes.
The conferees agree that: (1) the ship naming process must not be politicized; (2) setting
forth objective criteria can help in this goal; and (3) establishing a notify-and-wait period
will aid the Armed Service Committees’ oversight of the process. (Pages 201-202)
H.R. 5856 (FY2013 DOD Appropriations Act)
Senate
Section 8111 of H.R. 5856 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 112-196
of August 2, 2012) states:
Sec. 8111. It is the Sense of the Senate that the next available capital warship of the U.S.
Navy be named the USS Ted Stevens to recognize the public service achievements, military
service sacrifice, and undaunted heroism and courage of the long-serving United States
Senator for Alaska.
H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 (FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act)
Senate (S. 1867)
On November 30, 2011, as part of its consideration of S. 1867, the FY2012 National Defense
Authorization Act,53 the Senate adopted an en bloc amendment that included, among other things,
S.Amdt. 1134. The text of S.Amdt. 1134 is as follows:
53 S. 1867, an original measure reported by Senator Levin on November 15, 2011, without written report, in effect
superseded S. 1253, an earlier version of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1024. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE NAVY FOR NAMING
THE VESSELS OF THE NAVY.
(a) Report Required.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the policies and practices of the
Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
(b) Elements.—The report required by subsection (a) shall set forth the following:
(1) A description of the current policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the
Navy.
(2) A description of the extent to which the policies and practices described under paragraph
(1) vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy,
and an explanation for such variances (if any).
(3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the
naming of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies
recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such fixed
policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and advisable.
(4) Any other matters relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of
the Navy that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
Conference (H.R. 1540)
In the conference report (H.Rept. 112-329 of December 12, 2011) on H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of
December 31, 2011, the text of Section 1012 is as follows:
SEC. 1012. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NAMING OF NAVAL VESSEL AFTER
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS SERGEANT RAFAEL PERALTA.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy is encouraged to name the next
available Naval vessel after United States Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.
(See also H.R. 1945, discussed below.)
The text of Section 1014 of H.R. 1540 is as follows:
SEC. 1014. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE NAVY FOR NAMING
THE VESSELS OF THE NAVY.
(a) Report Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the policies and practices of the
Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
(b) Elements- The report required by subsection (a) shall set forth the following:
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
(1) A description of the current policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the
Navy.
(2) A description of the extent to which the policies and practices described under paragraph
(1) vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy,
and an explanation for such variances (if any).
(3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the
naming of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies
recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such fixed
policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and advisable.
(4) Any other matters relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of
the Navy that the Secretary of Defense
H.Con.Res. 48 (Regarding Naming a Littoral Combat Ship for
Ypsilanti, Michigan)
The text of H.Con.Res. 48, introduced on May 4, 2011, is as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name a Littoral
Combat Ship the U.S.S. Ypsilanti, in honor of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
Whereas the Navy proposes the procurement of 55 Littoral Combats Ships;
Whereas the Navy has stated it will name Littoral Combats Ships for small towns and
communities and mid-size cities;
Whereas the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, Michigan, with a combined
population of 74,439, is a small city that satisfies the criteria for naming Littoral Combats
Ships;
Whereas Ypsilanti, Michigan, is named in honor of General Demetrius Ypsilanti, who is
considered a Greek war hero for his contributions to achieving Greece’s independence in
1829;
Whereas in 1829, the Michigan settlement of Woodruff’s Grove combined land acquired by
three prominent settlers and changed its name to the City of Ypsilanti;
Whereas Ypsilanti is located in the county that hosts the only Naval Reserve Officer
Training Corps unit in Michigan;
Whereas the NROTC unit prepares students from Eastern Michigan University, located in
Ypsilanti, for service as officers in both the United States Navy and the United States Marine
Corps; and
Whereas the Littoral Combats Ships are designed to operate in littoral, or close-to-shore
environments, and a Navy vessel the bearing the name U.S.S. Ypsilanti would help convey
the American ideals of freedom and democracy to nations struggling to achieve democracy:
Now, therefore, be it
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of
Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name a Littoral Combat Ship in honor of
Ypsilanti, Michigan.
H.R. 1945 (Regarding Naming A Naval Vessel For Rafael Peralta)
The text of H.R. 1945, introduced on May 23, 2011, is as follows:
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of the Navy to name the next available Naval vessel after United
States Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NAMING OF NAVAL VESSEL AFTER UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS SERGEANT RAFAEL PERALTA.
The Secretary of the Navy shall name the next available Naval vessel after United States
Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.
H.Rept. 112-88 of May 24, 2011, which provided for the further consideration of H.R. 1540, the
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, listed an amendment (No. 36) similar in purpose to
H.R. 1945.54 H.Rept. 112-88 stated that this amendment
Would encourage the Secretary of the Navy to name the next available ship after Marine
Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta. Sergeant Peralta, who grew up in Southeast San Diego, was
nominated for the Medal of Honor for smothering a grenade with his body during combat in
Fallujah, Iraq. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross instead. A team of specialists,
which included pathologists and other experts, conducted an investigation at the direction of
the Secretary of Defense and determined that Peralta did not consciously pull the grenade
into his body. This conclusion contradicts the eye-witness accounts of the Marines fighting
alongside Peralta, as well as the recommendation put forward by Marine Corps leadership.
There have been 11 instances, going back to 1989, where Congress has included in
legislation that was signed into law how a Navy ship should be named. (Pages 6-7)
The Legislative Information System suggests that the House did not consider this amendment as
part of its consideration of H.R. 1540 on May 24-26, 2011.
(See also §1012 of H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81, discussed above.)
54 H.Rept. 112-88, pages 47-48, states that amendment No. 36 would add a new section to H.R. 1540 as follows:
SEC. 1022. NAMING OF NAVAL VESSEL AFTER UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
SERGEANT RAFAEL PERALTA.
Congress strongly encourages the Secretary of the Navy to name the next available Naval vessel
after United States Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.
Congressional Research Service
20
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Appendix A. Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy
Report to Congress
This appendix reprints the executive summary of the July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the
Navy’s policies and practices for naming its ships. The text of the executive summary is as
follows:
Executive Summary
This report is submitted in accordance with Section 1014 of P.L. 112-81, National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, dated 31 December 2011, which directs
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on “policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy.”
As required by the NDAA, this report:
• Includes a description of the current policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy, and a description of the extent to which theses policies and
practices vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of
the Navy, and an explanation for such variances;
• Assesses the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the naming of
one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies
recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such
fixed policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and
advisable; and
• Identifies any other matter relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
After examining the historical record in great detail, this report concludes:
• Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of
policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent with
ship naming customs and traditions.
• The establishment of fixed policies for the naming of one or more classes of vessels of
the Navy would be highly inadvisable. There is no objective evidence to suggest that
fixed policies would improve Navy ship naming policies and practices, which have
worked well for over two centuries.
In addition, the Department of the Navy used to routinely publish lists of current type
naming conventions for battle force ships, and update it as changes were made to them. At
some point, this practice fell into disuse, leading to a general lack of knowledge about
naming conventions. To remedy this problem, the Naval History and Heritage Command
will once again develop and publish a list of current type naming conventions to help all
Americans better understand why Secretaries of the Navy choose the ship names they do.
This list will be updated as required.55
55 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Appendix B. Legislative Activity in the 111th
Congress
H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 (FY2011 Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act)
House (H.R. 5136)
Section 1025 of H.R. 5136, the FY2011 defense authorization bill that was passed by the House
on May 28, 2010, expresses the sense of Congress that the Navy should name a combat ship for
Father Vincent Capodanno, a lieutenant in the Navy Chaplain Corps. The text of Section 1025 is
as follows:
SEC. 1025. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NAMING
OF A NAVAL COMBAT VESSEL AFTER FATHER VINCENT CAPODANNO.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Father Vincent Capodanno was born on February 13, 1929, in Staten Island, New York.
(2) After attending Fordham University for a year, he entered the Maryknoll Missionary
Seminary in upstate New York in 1949, and was ordained a Catholic priest in June 1957.
(3) Father Capodanno’s first assignment as a missionary was working with aboriginal
Taiwanese people in the mountains of Taiwan where he served in a parish and later in a
school. After several years, Father Capodanno returned to the United States for leave and
then was assigned to a Maryknoll school in Hong Kong.
(4) Father Vincent Capodanno volunteered as a Navy Chaplain and was commissioned a
Lieutenant in the Chaplain Corps of the United States Naval Reserve in December 28, 1965.
(5) Father Vincent Capodanno selflessly extended his combat tour in Vietnam on the
condition he was allowed to remain with the infantry.
(6) On September 4, 1967, during a fierce battle in the Thang Binh District of the Que-Son
Valley in Vietnam, Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites
and caring for the injured. He was killed that day while taking care of his Marines.
(7) On January 7, 1969, Father Vincent Capodanno was awarded the Medal of Honor
posthumously for comforting the wounded and dying during the Vietnam conflict. For his
dedicated service, Father Capodanno was also awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the
Presidential Unit Citation, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal,
the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
(...continued)
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
(8) In his memory, the U.S.S. Capodanno56 was commissioned on September 17, 1973. It is
the only Naval vessel to date to have received a Papal blessing by Pope John Paul II in
Naples, Italy, on September 4, 1981.
(9) The U.S.S. Capodanno was decommissioned on July 30, 1993.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should
name a combat vessel of the United States Navy the `U.S.S. Father Vincent Capodanno’, in
honor of Father Vincent Capodanno, a lieutenant in the Navy Chaplain Corps.
Final Version (H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383)
Section 1022 of H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011, expresses the sense of Congress that
the Navy should name a combat ship for Father Vincent Capodanno, a lieutenant in the Navy
Chaplain Corps. The text of Section 1022 is as follows:
SEC. 1022. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NAMING
OF A NAVAL COMBAT VESSEL AFTER FATHER VINCENT CAPODANNO.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Father Vincent Capodanno was born on February 13, 1929, in Staten Island, New York.
(2) After attending Fordham University for a year, he entered the Maryknoll Missionary
Seminary in upstate New York in 1949, and was ordained a Catholic priest in June 1957.
(3) Father Capodanno’s first assignment as a missionary was working with aboriginal
Taiwanese people in the mountains of Taiwan where he served in a parish and later in a
school. After several years, Father Capodanno returned to the United States for leave and
then was assigned to a Maryknoll school in Hong Kong.
(4) Father Vincent Capodanno volunteered as a Navy Chaplain and was commissioned a
Lieutenant in the Chaplain Corps of the United States Naval Reserve in December 28, 1965.
(5) Father Vincent Capodanno selflessly extended his combat tour in Vietnam on the
condition he was allowed to remain with the infantry.
(6) On September 4, 1967, during a fierce battle in the Thang Binh District of the Que-Son
Valley in Vietnam, Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites
and caring for the injured. He was killed that day while taking care of his Marines.
(7) On January 7, 1969, Father Vincent Capodanno was awarded the Medal of Honor
posthumously for comforting the wounded and dying during the Vietnam conflict. For his
dedicated service, Father Capodanno was also awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the
Presidential Unit Citation, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal,
the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
(8) In his memory, the U.S.S. Capodanno was commissioned on September 17, 1973. It is
the only Naval vessel to date to have received a Papal blessing by Pope John Paul II in
Naples, Italy, on September 4, 1981.
56 This ship, FF-1093, was a Knox (FF-1046) class frigate.
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
(9) The U.S.S. Capodanno was decommissioned on July 30, 1993.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should
name a combat vessel of the United States Navy the `U.S.S. Father Vincent Capodanno’, in
honor of Father Vincent Capodanno, a lieutenant in the Navy Chaplain Corps.
H.Res. 1022 (Congratulating the Navy for Naming a Naval Ship for
Medgar Evers)
H.Res. 1022, introduced on January 20, 2010, and passed by the House on February 4, 2010,
honors the life and sacrifice of Medgar Evers; recognizes the important role Evers played in
securing civil rights for all people in the United States; and congratulates the Navy for honoring
Medgar Evers by naming a naval ship for him. H.Res. 1022 states:
RESOLUTION
Honoring the life and sacrifice of Medgar Evers and congratulating the United States Navy
for naming a supply ship after Medgar Evers.
Whereas Medgar Evers was born on July 2, 1925, in Decatur, Mississippi;
Whereas Mr. Evers was hired by Dr. Theodore Roosevelt Mason Howard to sell insurance
for the Magnolia Mutual Life Insurance Company;
Whereas Mr. Evers was inducted into United States Army in 1943 and fought in the Battle of
Normandy;
Whereas Dr. Howard, as President of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, helped to
introduce Mr. Evers to civil rights activism;
Whereas Mr. Evers applied to the then-segregated University of Mississippi School of Law
in February 1954;
Whereas Mr. Evers’ application was rejected resulting in a National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaign to desegregate the school;
Whereas Mr. Evers was hired as a field secretary for the NAACP;
Whereas Mr. Evers was the target of a number of death threats as a result of his activism;
Whereas, on May 28, 1963, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into the carport of Mr. Evers’s
home and 5 days before his death Mr. Evers was assaulted by a car outside of an NAACP
office;
Whereas Mr. Evers was assassinated in the driveway of his home in Jackson after returning
from a meeting with NAACP lawyers on June 12, 1963;
Whereas this assassination occurred just hours after President John F. Kennedy’s speech on
national television in support of civil rights;
Whereas the death of Mr. Evers helped to prompt President John F. Kennedy to ask
Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill;
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Whereas that bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was signed into law by President Lyndon
Johnson;
Whereas Mr. Evers’ assassination has been memorialized in numerous popular songs,
movies, and written pieces;
Whereas in 1969, Medgar Evers College was established in Brooklyn, New York, as part of
the City University of New York;
Whereas, on June 28, 1992, the city of Jackson, Mississippi erected a statue in honor of Mr.
Evers;
Whereas in December 2004, the Jackson City Council changed the name of the city’s airport
to Jackson-Evers International Airport; and
Whereas, on October 9, 2009, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the United
States Naval Ship (USNS) Medgar Evers (T-AKE-13), a Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo
ship, will be named after Mr. Evers: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) honors the life and sacrifice of Medgar Evers;
(2) recognizes the important role Mr. Evers played in securing civil rights for all people in
the United States; and
(3) congratulates the United States Navy for honoring Medgar Evers by naming the United
States Naval Ship Medgar Evers after him.
Section 1022 of FY2010 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L.
111-84) (Designating USS Constitution as America’s Ship of State)
Section 1022 of the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28,
2009) designates the historic Navy ship USS Constitution as “America’s Ship of State.”57 Section
1022 states:
SEC. 1022. DESIGNATION OF U.S.S. CONSTITUTION AS AMERICA’S SHIP OF
STATE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to Provide a Naval Armament’’, approved on March 27,
1794 (1 Stat. 350, Chap. XII), the 3rd Congress authorized the construction of six frigates as
the first ships to be built for the United States Navy.
(2) One of the six frigates was built in Boston, Massachusetts, between 1794 and 1797, and
is the only one of the original six ships to survive.
57 The provision was included as §1014 in the Senate-reported version of the FY2010 defense authorization bill (S.
1390).
Congressional Research Service
25
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
(3) President George Washington named this frigate ‘‘Constitution’’ to represent the
Nation’s founding document.
(4) President Thomas Jefferson, asserting the right of the United States to trade on the high
seas, dispatched the frigate Constitution in 1803 as the flagship of the Mediterranean
Squadron to end the depredations of the Barbary States against United States ships and
shipping, which led to a treaty being signed with the Bashaw of Tripoli in the captain’s cabin
aboard the frigate Constitution on June 4, 1805.
(5) The frigate Constitution, with her defeat of the H.M.S. Guerriere, secured the first major
victory by the young United States Navy against the Royal Navy during the War of 1812,
gaining in the process the nickname ‘‘Old Ironsides’’, which she has proudly carried since.
(6) Congress awarded gold medals to four of the ship’s commanding officers (Preble, Hull,
Stewart, and Bainbridge), a record unmatched by any other United States Navy vessel.
(7) The frigate Constitution emerged from the War of 1812 undefeated, having secured
victories over three additional ships of the Royal Navy.
(8) As early as May 1815, the frigate Constitution had already been adopted as a symbol of
the young Republic, as attested by the [Washington] National Intelligencer which
proclaimed, ‘‘Let us keep ‘Old Ironsides’ at home. She has, literally become the Nation’s
Ship ... and should thus be preserved ... in honorable pomp, as a glorious Monument of her
own, and our other Naval Victories.’’.
(9) Rumors in 1830 that ‘‘Old Ironsides’’, an aging frigate, was about to be scrapped resulted
in a public uproar demanding that the ship be restored and preserved, spurred by Oliver
Wendell Holmes’ immortal poem ‘‘Old Ironsides’’.
(10) ‘‘Old Ironsides’’ circumnavigated the world between 1844 and 1846, showing the
American flag as she searched for future coaling stations that would eventually fuel the
steam-powered navy of the United States.
(11) The first Pope to set foot on United States sovereign territory was Pius IX onboard the
frigate Constitution in 1849.
(12) On April 25, 1860, ‘‘Old Ironsides’’ evacuated the midshipmen of the United States
Naval Academy from Annapolis, Maryland, to Newport, Rhode Island, preventing the young
officers and the esteemed ship from falling into Confederate hands.
(13) In 1896, Congressman John F. ‘‘Honey Fitz’’ Fitzgerald introduced legislation to return
‘‘Old Ironsides’’ from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire, where she was
moored pier side and largely forgotten, to Boston for her 100th birthday.
(14) Thousands of school children contributed pennies between 1925 an 1927 to help fund a
much needed restoration for ‘‘Old Ironsides’’.
(15) Between 1931 and 1934, more than 4,500,000 Americans gained inspiration, at the
depth of the Great Depression, by going aboard ‘‘Old Ironsides’’ as she was towed to 76
ports on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts.
(16) The 83rd Congress enacted the Act of July 23, 1954 (68 Stat. 527, chapter 565), which
directed the Secretary of the Navy to transfer to the States and appropriate commissions four
other historic ships then on the Navy inventory, and to repair and equip the U.S.S.
Constitution, as much as practicable, to her original condition, but not for active service.
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
(17) Queen Elizabeth II paid a formal visit to the U.S.S. Constitution in 1976, at the start of
her state visit marking the bicentennial of the United States.
(18) The U.S.S. Constitution, in celebration of her bicentennial, returned to sea under sail on
July 21, 1997, for the first time since 1881, proudly setting sails purchased by the
contributions of thousands of pennies given by school children across the United States.
(19) The U.S.S. Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world.
(20) The U.S.S. Constitution is a national historic landmark.
(21) The U.S.S. Constitution continues to perform official, ceremonial duties, including in
recent years hosting a congressional dinner honoring the late Senator John Chafee of Rhode
Island, a special salute for the dedication of the John Moakley Federal Courthouse, a
luncheon honoring British Ambassador Sir David Manning, and a special underway
demonstration during which 60 Medal of Honor recipients each received a personal Medal of
Honor flag.
(22) The U.S.S. Constitution celebrated on October 21, 2007, the 210th anniversary of her
launching.
(23) The U.S.S. Constitution will remain a commissioned ship in the United States Navy,
with the Navy retaining control of the ship, its material condition, and its employment.
(24) The U.S.S. Constitution’s primary mission will remain education and public outreach,
and any Ship of State functions will be an adjunct to the ship’s primary mission.
(b) DESIGNATION AS AMERICA’S SHIP OF STATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The U.S.S. Constitution is hereby designated as ‘‘America’s Ship of
State’’.
(2) REFERENCES.—The U.S.S. Constitution may be known or referred to as ‘‘America’s
Ship of State’’.
(3) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the President, Vice President,
executive branch officials, and Members of Congress should use the U.S.S. Constitution for
the conducting of pertinent matters of state, such as hosting visiting heads of state, signing
legislation relating to the Armed Forces, and signing maritime related treaties.
(4) FEE OR REIMBURSEMENT STRUCTURE FOR NON-DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY USE.—The Secretary of the Navy shall determine an appropriate fee or
reimbursement structure for any non-Department of the Navy entities using the U.S.S.
Constitution for Ship of State purposes.
H.Con.Res. 83 (Regarding Naming CVN-79 or CVN-80 for Barry
Goldwater)
H.Con.Res. 83, introduced on March 26, 2010, expresses the sense of the Congress that that a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, either CVN-79 or CVN-80, should be named for former Senator
Barry M. Goldwater. The text of H.Con.Res. 83 states:
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Navy, either
the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-79 or the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-80,
should be named the U.S.S. Barry M. Goldwater.
Whereas Barry M. Goldwater served as a pilot in the United States Army Air Corps during
World War II and was later a Major General in the Air Force Reserve;
Whereas Barry M. Goldwater was an avid pilot throughout his military career and after his
retirement;
Whereas Barry M. Goldwater was instrumental in the desegregation of Phoenix schools,
restaurants, and the Arizona National Guard;
Whereas Barry M. Goldwater was elected to the City Council in Phoenix in 1949, and served
as a United States Senator from Arizona from 1953 to 1965 and again from 1969 to 1987;
Whereas throughout his tenure in Congress, Senator Goldwater was as avid a proponent of a
strong national defense as he was a staunch opponent of communism and totalitarianism;
Whereas Senator Goldwater served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
and was responsible for the unanimous Senate passage of the Defense Department
Reorganization Act of 1986, which streamlined command channels at the Pentagon;
Whereas Senator Goldwater was nominated by the Republican Party as a candidate for
President of the United States in 1964;
Whereas Senator Goldwater memorably declared at the 1964 Republican Convention, `I
would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you
also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue’; and
Whereas Senator Barry M. Goldwater was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in
1986 by President Ronald Reagan: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of
Congress that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Navy, either the aircraft carrier
designated as CVN-79 or the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-80, should be named the
U.S.S. Barry M. Goldwater.
H.Res. 330 (Regarding Naming a Navy Ship for Clifton B. Cates)
H.Res. 330, introduced on April 2, 2009, expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that
the Secretary of the Navy should name an appropriate Navy ship in honor of Marine Corps
General Clifton B. Cates of Tiptonville, TN. As shown in Table 2, Section 1014 of P.L. 105-261
(the FY1999 Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law on
October 17, 1998) expressed the sense of Congress that a San Antonio (LPD-17) class
amphibious ship should be named for General Cates. In the years since the enactment of this
measure, the Navy has not named a ship for General Cates. The text of H.Res. 330 states:
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should
name an appropriate Navy ship in honor of Marine Corps General Clifton B. Cates of
Tiptonville, Tennessee.
Whereas Clifton B. Cates of Tiptonville, Tennessee served as a United States Marine during
World Wars I and II and the Korean War;
Whereas Clifton B. Cates entered the Marine Corps as a Second Lieutenant in 1917 at the
beginning of World War I, during which he fought in the crucial Second Battle of the Marne;
Whereas during that fight, then-Lieutenant Cates was wounded and gassed but refused to be
evacuated;
Whereas Clifton B. Cates was the most decorated Marine Corps Officer of World War I,
having been awarded the Navy Cross, Army Distinguished Service Cross with Oak Leaf
Cluster, Silver Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Purple Heart Medal with Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Legion of Honor, and the Croix de Guerre with Gilt Star and 2 palms;
Whereas during World War II, Clifton B. Cates led Marines at Guadalcanal, and the seizure
of Iwo Jima, and in recognition of his service was awarded the Legion of Merit with Combat
`V’ and the Distinguished Service Medal with a gold star;
Whereas Clifton B. Cates was one of the few officers of any branch of the United States
Armed Forces to command, under fire, a platoon, a company, a battalion, a regiment, and a
division;
Whereas Clifton B. Cates was advanced to the rank of General in 1948 and was named the
19th Commandant of the United States Marine Corps;
Whereas Clifton B. Cates served his country as a United States Marine for 37 years through
3 wars; and
Whereas members of the Clifton Cates Memorial Fund led by retired Colonel Otto Melsa
and Ed Youngblood have worked tirelessly to bring recognition to the significant
accomplishments of General Clifton B. Cates: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the
Navy should name an appropriate Navy ship in honor of Marine Corps General Clifton B.
Cates of Tiptonville, Tennessee.
H.Res. 1505 (Regarding Naming a Naval Ship for John
William Finn)
H.Res. 1505, introduced on July 1, 2010, expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that
the Secretary of the Navy should name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of World War II
Medal of Honor recipient John William Finn. The text of H.Res. 1505 states:
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the Navy should
name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of World War II Medal of Honor recipient
John William Finn.
Whereas John Finn served in the Navy from 1926 to 1956;
Whereas during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, John Finn, for
more than two hours at an exposed position, directed fire from a .50 caliber machine gun at
Japanese planes strafing Kaneohe Bay even after being severely wounded;
Whereas John was hit 21 times by bullet and bomb fragments, and despite his wounds, he
returned to the hangars later that day, after receiving medical treatment, and helped arm the
remaining American planes;
Whereas for his actions on that unforgettable day, John Finn was awarded the Medal of
Honor;
Whereas the Medal of Honor is considered an important part of military history and
tradition;
Whereas today there are only 90 living Medal of Honor recipients, with the last person
receiving the award for service during Vietnam;
Whereas John Finn, at the time of his death, was the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient
and the last living recipient from the attack on Pearl Harbor;
Whereas his legacy will continue inspiring us all while reminding countless Americans about
the sacrifices and contributions of the Nation’s greatest generation;
Whereas the stories of Medal of Honor recipients inspire the country and individuals, while
honoring those men and women who have dedicated themselves to the defense of the
country; and
Whereas the Medal of Honor provides the Armed Forces with a tremendous heritage and
tradition that motivates generations to greater achievements: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of the
Navy should name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of John William Finn for his
service and dedication to the United States and to the Navy.
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
30