Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Updated November 14, 2019
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS22478

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states
or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for
battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire.
Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the
naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express
support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office
of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation
relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names
have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 34 link to page 35 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendixes
Appendix A. Executive Summary of July 2012 Navy Report to Congress ................................... 29

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 30

Congressional Research Service

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Background
Navy’s Authority and Process for Naming Ships
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.1 The reference to the Secretary of the Navy
disappeared from the U.S. Code in 1925.2 The code today (10 U.S.C. §8662) is silent on the issue
of who has the authority to name new Navy ships,3 but the Secretary of the Navy arguably retains
implicit authority, given the location of Section 8662 in subtitle C of Title 10, which covers the
Navy and Marine Corps.
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 the
following:
As with many other things, the procedures and practices involved in Navy ship naming are
as much, if not more, products of evolution and tradition than of legislation. As we have
seen, the names for new ships are personally decided by the Secretary of the Navy. The

1 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 following: “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.)
2 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.
3 10 U.S.C. §8662 was previously numbered as 10 U.S.C. §7292. It was renumbered as 10 U.S.C. §7292 by Section
807(d)(2) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515/P.L. 115-232 of
August 13, 2018). (Section 807 of P.L. 115-232 directed the renumbering of various sections of Title 10 relating to the
Navy and Marine Corps. Sections 806 and 808 did the same for sections of Title 10 relating to the Air Force and Army,
respectively.) Prior to that, 34 U.S.C. §461-463 of the 1925 U.S. Code (see previous footnote) had been recodified as
10 U.S.C. §7292. 10 U.S.C. §8662 states that battleships “shall 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” (§8662(b)). It specifically authorizes the
Secretary of the Navy to “change the name of any vessel bought for the Navy” (§8662(c)), but does not explicitly
assign responsibility for ensuring that no two vessels have the same name (§8662(a)), or for naming battleships
(§8662(b)).
Congressional Research Service

1

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Secretary can rely on many sources to help him reach his decisions. Each year, the Navy
History and Heritage Command (NHHC) compiles primary and alternate ship name
recommendations and forwards these to the Chief of Naval Operations by way of the chain
of command. These recommendations are the result of research into the history of the Navy
and by suggestions submitted by service members, Navy veterans, and the public. Ship
name source records at NHHC reflect the wide variety of name sources that have been used
in the past, particularly since World War I. Ship name recommendations are conditioned
by such factors as the name categories for ship types now being built, as approved by the
Secretary of the Navy; the distribution of geographic names of ships of the fleet; names
borne by previous ships that distinguished themselves in service; names recommended by
individuals and groups; and names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased
members of the Navy and Marine Corps who have been honored for heroism in war or for
extraordinary achievement in peace.
In its final form, after consideration at the various levels of command, the Chief of Naval
Operations signs the memorandum recommending names for the current year’s building
program and sends it to the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary considers these
nominations, along with others he receives, as well as his own thoughts in this matter. At
appropriate times, he selects names for specific ships and announces them.
While there is no set time for assigning a name, it is customarily done before the ship is
christened. The ship’s sponsor─the person who will christen the ship─is also selected and
invited by the Secretary. In the case of ships named for individuals, an effort is made to
identify the eldest living direct female descendant of that individual to perform the role of
ship’s sponsor. For ships with other name sources, it is customary to honor the wives of
senior naval officers or public officials.4
A July 2012 Navy report to Congress on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships (see
next section) states the following:
Once a type/class naming convention [i.e., a general rule or guideline for how ships of a
certain type or class are to be named] is established, Secretaries can rely on many sources
to help in the final selection of a ship name. For example, sitting Secretaries can solicit
ideas and recommendations from either the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) or the
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), or both. They can also task the Naval Heritage
and History Command to compile primary and alternate ship name recommendations that
are the result of research into the history of the Navy’s battle force or particular ship names.
Secretaries also routinely receive formal suggestions for ship names from concerned
citizens, active and retired service members, or members of Congress. Finally, Congress
can enact provisions in Public Law that express the sense of the entire body about new ship
naming conventions or specific ship names. Regardless of the origin of the
recommendations, however, the final selection of a ship’s name is the Secretary’s to make,
informed and guided by his own thoughts, counsel, and preferences. At the appropriate
time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or appropriated by
Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records his decision with
a formal naming announcement.5

4 Naval History and Heritage Command, “The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy,” accessed April 30, 2019,
at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/
the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s—navy.html.
5 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.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 34 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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.6 The report was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011). The
executive summary of the Navy’s report is reprinted here as Appendix A.7
Overview of 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 the following: “How will the Navy name its
ships in the future? It seems safe to say that the evolutionary process of the past will continue; as
the fleet itself changes, so will the names given to its ships. It seems equally safe, however, to say
that future decisions in this area will continue to demonstrate regard for the rich history and
valued traditions of the United States Navy.”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
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

6 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 November 14, 2019, the report
was posted at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/pdf/Shipnamingreport.pdf.
7 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.
8 Cruisers named for states were nuclear-powered cruisers.
9 Naval History and Heritage Command, “The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy,” accessed April 30, 2019,
at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions0/ship-naming/
the-evolution-of-ship-naming-in-the-u-s—navy.html.
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.
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, who served
for many years as 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.
Congressional Research Service

3

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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 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 the following: “Current ship naming policies
and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of
the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”17

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, [then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray]
Mabus endorses and subscribes to this special naming convention....
Objections to [then-]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; Carl Forsling, “A Plan To Fix The
Navy’s Broken Ship Naming System,” Task and Purpose, May 6, 2015.
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
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,
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 27 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Rules for Ship Types Now Being Procured or Recently 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.
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs)
On December 14, 2016, the Navy named the first of its 12 planned next-generation ballistic
missile submarines Columbia (SSBN-826), in honor of the District of Columbia.18 The 12
planned boats are consequently now referred to as Columbia-class or SSBN-826 class boats.19
The Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be. Given the selection of
Columbia as the name of the lead ship, possibilities for the naming rule include (but are not
necessarily limited to) cities, capital cities, or states and federal districts and territories. It is also
possible that the name Columbia will turn out to be an exception to the naming rule for the class.
The current USS Columbia (SSN-771)—a Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine that
was named for Columbia, SC; Columbia, IL; and Columbia, MO20—entered service in 1995 and
will reach the end of its 33-year expected service life in 2028, at about the time that construction
of SSBN-826 is scheduled to be completed. If the service life of SSN-771 is extended for several
years, it would remain in service after the commissioning of SSBN-826. This would create an
issue to be resolved, since 10 U.S.C. §8662(a) states, “Not more than one vessel of the Navy may
have the same name.” One possible step for resolving such an issue would be to change the name
of SSBN-826 to something else, such as District of Columbia—a step that could be viewed as
somewhat similar to the below-discussed instance in which the name of the Los Angles-class
submarine SSN-705 was changed from Corpus Christi to City of Corpus Christi (see
“Congressional Responses to Announced Navy Ship-Naming Decisions” below).
Attack Submarines (SSNs)
Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines21 are being named for states. An exception occurred
on January 8, 2009, when then-Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that SSN-785
would be named for former Senator John Warner.22 Another exception occurred on January 9,

undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
18 “Secretary of the Navy Names Three Vessels,” DOD Press Release NR-444-16, December 14, 2016. See also Megan
Eckstein, “SECNAV Mabus to Officially Designate First ORP [Ohio Replacement Program] Boat USS Columbia
(SSBN-826),” USNI News, December 13, 2016. The Navy’s intent to name the first Ohio replacement boat Columbia
was first reported in July 2016; see Sam LaGrone, “Navy Ohio Replacement Sub Class to Be Named for D.C.,” USNI
News, July 28, 2016; Jacqueline Klimas, “Navy’s Next Sub Class to Be Named after D.C.,” Washington Examiner, July
29, 2016; “Document: Notice to Congress on 8 Proposed Navy Ship Names,” USNI News, August 3, 2016.
19 For more on the Columbia-class program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
20 “Columbia VIII (SSN-771), 1995–,” Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed December 22, 2016, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/columbia-viii—ssn-771-.html.
21 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack
Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
22 DOD News Release No. 016-09, “Navy Names Virginia Class Submarine USS John Warner,” January 8, 2009.
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 11 months before the ship was
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 8 link to page 21 link to page 26 link to page 26 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

2014, when then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that SSN-795, the second of the
two Virginia-class boats procured in FY2015, would be named for Admiral Hyman G. Rickover,
who served for many years as director of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program.23
As of November 14, 2019, the Navy has announced names for all Virginia-class boats through
SSN-801, the second of two Virginia-class boats procured in FY2018.
A total of 30 Virginia-class boats have been procured through FY2019, of which 26 have been
named for states. (Two were named for people and the two procured in FY2019 have not yet been
named.) The Navy’s shipbuilding plan calls for procuring three additional Virginia-class boats in
FY2020 and two per year FY2021 and subsequent years.24 The 26 state-named Virginia-class
boats procured through FY2018, together with the additional Virginia-class boats planned for
procurement in FY2020 and subsequent years and the 17 existing state-named Ohio (SSBN-726)
class SSBNs and cruise missile submarine (SSGNs),25 could make for a total of more than 50
boats starting around FY2022. Thus, starting around FY2022, the Navy might run out of state
names for Virginia-class boats, and consequently might need to either amend the Virginia-class
naming rule or begin making a series of exceptions to the rule.
Aircraft Carriers (CVNs)
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.”26 Of the 14 most
recently named aircraft carriers (those with hull numbers 67 through 80), 10 have been named for
U.S. Presidents and 2 for Members of Congress.
The Navy is currently procuring Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class carriers.27 On January 16, 2007,
the Navy announced that CVN-78, the lead ship in the CVN-78 class, would be named for
President Gerald R. Ford. On May 29, 2011, the Navy announced that CVN-79, the second ship

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.)
23 DOD News Release No. NR-009-15, “Navy Names New Virginia-Class Attack Submarine,” January 9, 2015. As
discussed elsewhere in this report (see footnote 12, Table 2, and the section entitled “Overview of Congressional
Influence on Navy Ship-Naming Decisions”), a previous attack submarine—the Los Angeles-class submarine SSN-
709—was named for Rickover.
24 For more on the Navy’s shipbuilding plan, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
25 A total of 18 Ohio-class boats were built, of which 17 were named for states. (The fifth boat in the class, SSBN-730,
was named for Senator Henry M. Jackson.) The 18 boats were all built as SSBNs; the first four boats in the class were
later converted into cruise missile submarines (SSGNs). For more on the Ohio-class boats, see CRS Report R41129,
Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
26 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.
27 For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

6

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

in the class, would be named for President John F. Kennedy.28 On December 1, 2012, the Navy
announced that CVN-80, the third ship in the class, would be named Enterprise. The Navy made
the announcement on the same day that it deactivated the 51-year-old aircraft carrier CVN-65,
also named Enterprise.29 CVN-80 is the ninth Navy ship named Enterprise. CVN-80 was
procured in the FY2018 budget, which Congress considered in 2017. If CVN-80, like most Navy
ships, had been named at about the time of procurement, or later, rather than in 2012, it would
have been named by the current Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer. The July 2012 Navy
report to Congress, which was produced when Ray Mabus was the Secretary of the Navy, states
that
Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus values the ability to consider [aircraft] carrier names
on an individual, case‐by‐case basis, for two reasons. First, it will allow a future Secretary
to name a future fleet aircraft carrier for someone or something other than a former
President. Indeed, Secretary Mabus has a particular name in mind. With the scheduled
decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US
Navy history besides USS Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register.
Secretary Mabus believes this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the
Enterprise’s storied name on a future carrier.30
Prior to the naming of CVN-80, the most recent carrier that was not named for a President or
Member of Congress was the second of the 14 most recently named carriers, Nimitz (CVN-68),
which was procured in FY1967.31
Destroyers (DDGs)
Destroyers traditionally have been named for famous U.S. naval leaders and distinguished heroes.
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress discusses this tradition and states more specifically that
destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard,
including Secretaries of the Navy. Exceptions since 2012 (all of which involve Arleigh Burke
[DDG-51] class destroyers)32 include the following:
 On May 7, 2012, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-116 for a living
person,33 Thomas Hudner.34

28 DOD News Release No. 449-11, “Navy Names Next Aircraft Carrier USS John F. Kennedy,” May 29, 2011. 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.
29 “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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 For more on the Navy’s destroyer procurement programs, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000
Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
33 Throughout this report, the term living person means a person who was living at the time the name was announced.
34 DOD News Release No. 352-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces DDG 116 to Be Named Thomas Hudner,” May
7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

7

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

 On May 23, 2013, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-117 for a living
person, Paul Ignatius, and that it was naming DDG-118 for the late Senator
Daniel Inouye, who served in the U.S. Army during World War II.35
 On March 31 and April 5, 2016, it was reported that the Navy was naming DDG-
120 for a living person, former Senator Carl Levin.36
 On July 28, 2016, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-124 for a living
person, Harvey C. Barnum Jr.37
 On July 11, 2018, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the
Navy was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56) to
include a living person, Senator John S. McCain III.38
 On May 6, 2019, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-133 for a living
person, former Senator Sam Nunn, who had served in the Coast Guard from 1959
to 1960, and in the Coast Guard Reserve from 1960 until 1968.39
As of November 14, 2019, the Navy had announced names for all DDG-51 class destroyers
procured through DDG-134, one of three DDG-51s requested for procurement in FY2020. In
addition, on November 13, 2019, the Navy announced that it would name two additional DDG-51
class destroyers for the late former Senators Thad Cochran and Richard Lugar (both of whom

35 DOD News Release No. 361-13, “Navy Names Next Two Destroyers,” May 23, 2013.
36 General Dynamics press release, “Navy Awards General Dynamics Bath Iron Works $644 Million for Construction
of DDG 51 Class Destroyer,” March 31, 2016, and Associated Press, “Navy Naming Destroyer after Former Michigan
Senator Carl Levin,” Military Times, April 5, 2016.
37 “Secretary Mabus Names Destroyer for Medal of Honor Recipient,” Navy News Service, July 28, 2016.
38 On July 11, 2018, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the Navy was expanding the name of the
destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56), originally named for Admiral John S. “Slew” McCain (1884-1945) and his son,
Admiral John S. “Jack” McCain Jr. (1911-1981), to also include Senator John S. McCain III, the grandson of Admiral
John S. McCain and the son of Admiral John S. McCain Jr. DDG-56 was procured in FY1989 and was commissioned
into service on July 2, 1994. John S. McCain III served as a Member of the House of Representatives from 1983 to
1987, and as a Senator from 1987 to 2018. Among his committee chairmanships, he was the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee from January 3, 2015, until his death on August 25, 2018. He was the Republican Party
candidate for President in 2008. A July 12, 2018, notice from Secretary Spencer stated the following:
Expanding the name of USS JOHN S. MCCAIN to include Senator McCain properly honors three
generations of dedicated service to our Navy and nation. Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945),
served as a distinguished carrier task force commander of World War II. Admiral John S. McCain,
Jr. (1911-1981), served as the former Commander-in- Chief, U.S. Pacific Command. Senator John
S. McCain III, continued the legacy of service as a Naval Aviator during the Vietnam War. As a
prisoner of war, McCain represented our nation with dignity and returned with honor.
(Richard V. Spencer, SecNav notice 5030, July 12, 2018, “Name Added to Ship Currently in
Fleet,” posted at “VIDEO: Sen. John McCain Added to Destroyer’s Namesake Along with Father,
Grandfather,” USNI News, July 11, 2018.)
See also the press release entitled “U.S. Navy Names Ship After U.S. Senator John McCain,” July 11, 2018, accessed
July 12, 2018, at https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/7/u-s-navy-names-ship-after-u-s-senator-john-
mccain; Caitlin Doornbos, “McCain Joins Father and Grandfather on Ship’s List of Namesakes,” Stars and Stripes,
July 11, 2018. See also “VIDEO: Sen. John McCain Added to Destroyer’s Namesake Along with Father, Grandfather,”
USNI News, July 11, 2018; Ken Moritsugu (Associated Press), “US Navy Dedicates Japan-Based Destroyer to US Sen.
McCain,” Navy Times, July 12, 2018.
39 See Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names New Destroyer In Honor of US Senator from Georgia,”
Navy News Service, May 6, 2019. Nunn was a Senator from 1972 to 1997. During his time in the Senate, he was,
among other things, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from January 1987 to January 1995.
Congressional Research Service

8

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

served in the Navy early in their careers), but the Navy did not specify which DDG-51 class ships
would be so named.40
Frigates (FFG[X]s)
The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20
guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the
second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of 2 per year in FY2022-FY2030.41 As of
November 14, 2019, the Navy had not announced a naming rule for this planned new class of
ships. Previous classes of U.S. Navy frigates, like Navy destroyers, were generally named for
naval leaders and heroes.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
A total of 35 Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) have been procured through FY2019; the Navy does
not want to procure any more LCSs.42 LCSs were at first named for U.S. mid-tier cities, small
towns, and other U.S. communities.43 The naming rule was later adjusted to regionally important
U.S. cities and communities. An exception occurred on February 10, 2012, when the Navy
announced that it was naming LCS-10 for former Representative Gabrielle Giffords.44
Another exception occurred on February 23, 2018, when President Trump, in a press conference
with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, announced that an LCS would be named
Canberra, in honor of HMAS Canberra (D33), an Australian cruiser named for the capital city of
Australia that fought alongside U.S. Navy forces in World War II45 and was scuttled after being
damaged by Japanese attack in the Battle of Savo Island on August 9, 1942. The Navy has
identified the LCS to be named Canberra as LCS-30.46 A previous U.S. Navy ship, the gun
cruiser Canberra (CA-70), which served from 1943 to 1947 and again from 1956 to 1970, was
similarly named in honor of HMAS Canberra. There is also a current HMAS Canberra (L02), an
amphibious assault ship (i.e., helicopter carrier) that entered service in 2014 and now serves as
the flagship of the Australian navy.47 The situation of LCS-30 and L02 sharing the same name
will presumably not violate 10 U.S.C. §8662(a)—which states that “not more than one vessel of
the Navy may have the same name”—because 10 U.S.C. §8662 is a statute governing the naming
of U.S. Navy ships and L02 is not a U.S. Navy ship.

40 Source: email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, November 14, 2019.
41 For more on the FFG(X) program, see CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
42 For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
43 The Navy named LCS-1 and LCS-2 Freedom and Independence, respectively, after multiple U.S. cities with these
names.
44 DOD News Release No. 096-12, “Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship Gabrielle Giffords,” February 10, 2012. 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.
45 Richard R. Burgess, “President Trump Names Navy LCS for World War II Australian Cruiser,” Seapower, February
23, 2018.
46 Source for LCS-30 as the LCS in question: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, “Canberra II (LCS-30),”
accessed April 23, 2018.
47 In between D33 and L02, there was also HMAS Canberra (FFG 02), a frigate that served in Australia’s navy from
1981 to 2005.
Congressional Research Service

9

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

The Navy has posted or announced names for all 35 LCSs procured through FY2019 (i.e., LCSs
up through LCS-31, plus LCS-32, LCS-34, LCS-36, and LCS-38).
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHAs)
Amphibious assault ships (LHAs), which look like medium-sized aircraft carriers, are being
named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous
earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles.48 The Navy announced on June 27, 2008,
that the first LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship, LHA-6, would be named America, a name
previously used for an aircraft carrier (CV-66) that served in the Navy from 1965 to 1996. The
Navy announced on May 4, 2012, that LHA-7, the second ship in the class, LHA-7, would be
named Tripoli, the location of famous Marine battles in the First Barbary War.49 The Navy
reaffirmed this name selection with a more formal announcement on May 30, 2014.50 On
November 9, 2016, the Navy announced that the third ship in the class, LHA-8, will be named
Bougainville, the location of a famous World War II campaign in the Pacific.51
Amphibious Ships (LPDs)
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.52 Another exception occurred on May 2, 2018, when
the Navy announced that it was naming LPD-29, the 13th ship in the class, for Navy Captain
Richard M. McCool Jr., who received the Medal of Honor for his actions in World War II and
later served in the Korean and Vietnam wars. On October 10, 2019, the Navy announced that
LPD-30, which was funded in FY2018, will be named Harrisburg, for the city of Harrisburg,
PA.53 LPD-30 is to be the first of a new version, or flight, of the LPD-17 class design called the
LPD-17 Flight II design.54

48 For more on the LHA program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship
Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
49 DOD News Release No. 347-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces LHA 7 Will Be Named USS Tripoli,” May 4,
2012. 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.
50 “SECNAV Formally Names USS Tripoli,” Navy News Service, June 2, 2014.
51 “SECNAV Names Next Amphibious Assault Ship,” Navy News Service, November 9, 2016.
52 DOD News Release No. 329-10, “Navy Names Amphibious Ship For Congressman John Murtha,” April 23, 2010.
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. For a recent news report about the naming of this ship, see Dan Lamothe, “As Anger Still Simmers,
Navy Christening the USS John P. Murtha,” Washington Post, March 20, 2015.
53 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Amphibious Transport Dock Ship in Honor of the
city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,” Navy News Service, October 10, 2019.
54 For more on the LPD-17 Flight II program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious
Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

10

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Oilers (TAOs)
On January 6, 2016, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Navy’s new
oilers will be named for “people who fought for civil rights and human rights,”55 and that the first
ship in the class, TAO-205, which was procured in FY2016, will be named for Representative
John Lewis.56 The ships in this class consequently are now referred to as John Lewis (TAO-205)
class ships. The Navy wants to procure a total of 20 John Lewis-class ships.57
On July 28, 2016, it was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth ships in the
class (i.e., TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone,
and Sojourner Truth, respectively.58 All these names were later posted by the Navy for these
ships.
Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ships (TAKEs)
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.59 The
Navy announced on May 18, 2011, that the 14th ship in the class would be named for civil rights
activist Cesar Chavez.60
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs)
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), which until May 2011 were being procured by the Army as
well as by the Navy, were at first named for American traits and values. In December 2009, the
naming rule for EPFs was changed to small U.S. cities. At some point between December 2010
and October 2011, it was adjusted to small U.S. cities and counties.61 As of November 14, 2019,
the Navy had posted names for all EPFs through EPF-14, which was procured in FY2019.

55 Valerie Insinna, “Navy to Name Next Generation Oilers for Civil Rights Icons,” Defense Daily, January 7, 2016: 4.
56 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Fleet Replenishment Oiler,” Navy News Service, January 6, 2016.
57 For more on the John Lewis-class program, see CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler
Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
58 Sam LaGrone, “Navy to Name Ship After Gay Rights Activist Harvey Milk,” USNI News, July 28, 2016. See also
“Document: Notice to Congress on 8 Proposed Navy Ship Names,” USNI News, August 3, 2016. See also “SECNAV
to Name Next John Lewis-Class Oiler After Civil and Human Rights Leader Harvey Milk,” Navy Live, July 30, 2016;
“Secretary of the Navy Names Newest Fleet Replenishment Oiler, USNS Harvey Milk,” Navy News Service, August
17, 2016. The first six ships in the class are being procured under a block buy contract.
59 DOD News Release No. 788-09, “Navy Names Ship After Civil Rights Activist Medgar Evers,” October 9, 2009.
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.
60 DOD News Release No. 420-11, “Navy Names Ship For Civil Rights Activist Cesar Chavez,” May 18, 2011. 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. A November 29, 2016, news article states the following: “I got the name Cesar Chavez from the shipyard,”
[then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus] said [referring to General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding
Company (GD/NASSCO) of San Diego, CA, the builder of the TAKE-1 class ships]. “They were the ones who
recommended it because 85 percent of the shipyard workers in San Diego are Hispanic.” (Wyatt Olson, “Outgoing
Navy Sec. Mabus Leaves Imprint on Policies, Ship Acquisition,” Military.com, November 29, 2016.)
61 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.
Congressional Research Service

11

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs)
The Navy’s two Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs 1 and 2) and its Expeditionary Sea Bases
(ESB 3 and higher) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S.
Marines. Two of these ships have been named for living persons—ESD-2, which was named
John Glenn, and ESB-4, which was named for Hershel “Woody” Williams.
On November 4, 2017, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer announced that the third ESB
(ESB-5), which was procured in FY2016, would be named for Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and
Medal of Honor recipient Lance Corporal Miguel Keith.62 This was Spencer’s first announced
naming of a Navy ship. A fourth ESB (ESB-6) was procured in FY2018, and a fifth (ESB-7) was
procured in FY2019. Navy plans calls for procuring a total of six ESBs.
Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ships (TATSs)
On March 12, 2019, the Navy announced that that TATS-6, the first ship in a new class of towing,
salvage, and rescue ships (TATSs), would be named Navajo, and that ships in this class will be
named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes.63 On June 21, 2019, the Navy
announced that TATS-7, the second ship in the class, would be named Cherokee Nation.64 On July
26, 2019, the Navy announced that TATS-8, the third ship in the class, would be named Saginaw
Ojibwe Anishinabek in honor of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.65
Aspects of Navy Ship Names
State Names Not Used in a Long Time—Particularly Kansas
It has been a long time since ships named for certain states were last in commissioned service
with the Navy as combat assets. While there is no rule requiring the Navy, in selecting state
names for ships, to choose states for which the most time has passed since a ship named for the
state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, advocates of naming a
ship for a certain state may choose to point out, among other things, the length of time that has
transpired since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a
combat asset.
In its announcement of April 13, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack
submarines SSNs 786 through 790 for Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and South Dakota,
respectively, the Department of Defense stated, “None of the five states has had a ship named for
it for more than 49 years. The most recent to serve was the battleship Indiana, which was
decommissioned in October 1963.”66 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following:
“Before deciding on which names to select [for the five submarines], [then-]Secretary [of the

62 “SECNAV Spencer Names New Expeditionary Sea Base,” Navy News Service, November 4, 2017; Sam LaGrone,
“Spencer Names First Ship as SECNAV After Vietnam War Marine Miguel Keith,” USNI News, November 5, 2017.
63 “SECNAV Names New Class of Towing, Salvage and Rescue Ship Navajo,” Navy News Service, March 12, 2019.
64 “SECNAV Names Newest Towing Salvage and Rescue Ship Cherokee Nation,” Navy News Service, June 21, 2019.
65 “Secretary of the Navy Names Newest Towing Salvage and Rescue Ship Saginaw Ojibwe Anishinabek,” Navy News
Service, July 26, 2019.
66 DOD News Release No. 264-12, “Navy Names Five New Submarines,” April 13, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 19 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Navy Ray] Mabus asked for a list of State names that had been absent the longest from the US
Naval Register....”67
In its announcement of November 19, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia class attack
submarine SSN-791 for Delaware, the Department of Defense quoted then-Secretary Mabus as
saying, “It has been too long since there has been a USS Delaware in the fleet....”68
A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s September 18, 2014, announcement that the
Virginia class attack submarine SSN-792 was being named for Vermont stated that “This is the
first ship named for Vermont since 1920[,] when the second USS Vermont was
decommissioned.”69
A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s October 10, 2014, announcement that the Virginia
class attack submarine SSN-793 was being named for Oregon stated that the previous USS
Oregon “was a battleship best known for its roles in the Spanish American War when it helped
destroy Admiral Cervera’s fleet and in the Philippine-American War; it performed blockade duty
in Manila Bay and off Lingayen Gulf, served as a station ship, and aided in the capture of
Vigan.”70
A Navy News Service article about the Navy’s January 19, 2016, announcement that the Virginia-
class attack submarine SSN-801 was being named for Utah stated, “The future USS Utah will be
the second naval vessel to bear the name; the first, a battleship designated BB-31, was
commissioned in 1911 and had a long, honorable time in service.... While conducting anti-
gunnery exercises in Pearl Harbor, BB-31 was struck by a torpedo and capsized during the initial
stages of the Japanese attack [on December 7, 1941]. She was struck from the Navy record Nov.
13, 1944 and received a battle star for her service in World War I.”71
The Navy’s naming announcements for Virginia-class submarines have reduced the group of
states for which several decades had passed since a ship named for the state had been in
commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is
currently under construction. This group used to include Illinois, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon, and
Montana, but Virginia-class attack submarines have now been named for these states. (See the
Virginia-class attack submarine naming announcements of April 13, 2012; November 19, 2012;
September 18, 2014; October 10, 2014; and September 2, 2015, respectively.)
As shown in Table 1, the three states for which the most time now appears to have passed since a
ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset, and
for which no ship by that name is currently under construction, are Kansas, Arizona, and
Oklahoma. In particular, as of November 14, 2019, it has been almost 98 years since the
decommissioning on December 16, 1921, of the battleship Kansas (BB-21), the most recent ship
named for the state of Kansas that was in commissioned service with the Navy as a combat asset.

67 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.
68 DOD News Release No. 914-12, “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names the Next Virginia-Class Submarine USS
Delaware with Dr. Jill Biden as the Sponsor,” November 19, 2012.
69 “SECNAV Names Virginia-class Submarine, USS Vermont,” Navy News Service, September 18, 2014.
70 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Virginia-Class Submarine USS Oregon,” Navy News Service, October
10, 2014.
71 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Virginia-Class Submarine,” Navy News Service, January 19, 2016. BB-31
was decommissioned on September 5, 1944, and then struck from the navy record on November 13, 1944.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 21 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 1. State Names That Have Not Been Used in a Long Time
Most recent ship named
State
for that state
Notes
Kansas
The battleship Kansas (BB-
The Littoral Combat Ship Kansas City (LCS-22), named for the
21), decommissioned in
adjacent cities of Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, is
1921
under construction. LCS-22 was procured in FY2015 and is scheduled
to enter service in FY2019. Its name was announced in July 2015 by
then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.
Arizona
The battleship Arizona (BB-
BB-39 was decommissioned on December 29, 1941, fol owing its
39), decommissioned 1941
sinking in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
BB-39 now serves as a memorial.
Oklahoma The battleship Oklahoma
BB-37 was sunk in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December
(BB-37), decommissioned in 7, 1941. The ship was raised and surveyed. It was found to be too
1944
economical to repair, and was decommissioned in 1944. The attack
submarine Oklahoma City (SSN-723) entered service in 1988 and wil
reach the end of its 33-year expected service life in 2021.
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on data in Naval Vessel Register (http://www.nvr.navy.mil/). The Navy
states that LCS-22 is named for “the large cities in Missouri and Kansas.” (“Kansas City II (LCS-22),” accessed
September 14, 2016, at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/k/kansas-city-ii—lcs-
22-.html.)
As discussed earlier in the section on rules for naming SSNs, starting around FY2022, the Navy
might run out of state names for Virginia-class boats, and consequently might need to either
amend the Virginia-class naming rule or begin making a series of exceptions to the rule.
Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons, meaning (throughout this
CRS report) persons who were living at the time the name was announced. The Navy stated in
February 2012 that
The Navy named several ships for living people (ex. George Washington, Ben Franklin,
etc.) in the early years of our Republic. The Naval History and Heritage Command
(NHHC) believes that the last ship to be named by the Navy in honor of a living person
prior to [the aircraft carrier] CARL VINSON (CVN-70) was the brig JEFFERSON
(launched in April 1814). Between 1814 and November 18, 1973, when President Nixon
announced the naming of CARL VINSON,72 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.73
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.

72 Although President Nixon announced on November 18, 1973 that CVN-70 would be named for Carl Vinson, as
shown in Table 2, the name apparently was officially given to the ship on January 18, 1974.
73 Navy information paper dated February 28, 2012, provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, March 1,
2012.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 21 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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 [now then-Secretary] of
the Navy Ray Mabus, Secretaries of the Navy have occasionally chosen to follow this new,
“old tradition,” naming ships in honor of still living former Presidents Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Gerald R. Ford; Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze;
Navy Admirals Hyman G. Rickover, Arleigh Burke, and Wayne E. Meyer; Senators John
C. Stennis and John Warner; and famous entertainer Bob Hope. Moreover, it is important
to note that three of these well-known Americans—Gerald R. Ford, John C. Stennis, and
Bob Hope—were so honored after Congress enacted provisions in Public Laws urging the
Navy to do so. By its own actions, then, Congress has acknowledged the practice of
occasionally naming ships for living persons, if not outright approved of it.
In other words, while naming ships after living persons remains a relatively rare
occurrence—about three per decade since 1970—it is now an accepted but sparingly used
practice for Pragmatic Secretaries [of the Navy] of both parties. For them, occasionally
honoring an especially deserving member of Congress, US naval leader, or famous
American with a ship name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that their
life’s work is both recognized and honored by America’s Navy-Marine Corps Team, and
that their spirit will accompany and inspire the Team in battle, is sometimes exactly the
right thing to do.74
As shown in Table 2, since the naming of CVN-70 for Carl Vinson in 1974, at least 21 U.S.
military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
Eight of the 21 were announced between January 2012 and March 2016, including three
announced in 2012 and four announced in 2016. In four of the six most-recent instances, the ships
were named for current or former Members of Congress. The most recent instance occurred on
May 6, 2019, when the Navy announced that it was naming the destroyer DDG-51 for former
Senator Sam Nunn. (For further discussion of that naming action, see the earlier section on names
for destroyers.)

74 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

15

link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 2. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time
Year
Age of
ship
person
Fiscal
entered
when
year ship
or is to
Hull
Date 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
Expeditionary transport dock
ESD-2
John Glenn
1/4/2012
90
FY2011
2014
Littoral Combat Ship
LCS-10
Gabrielle Giffords
2/10/2012
41
FY2012
2017
Destroyer
DDG-116
Thomas Hudner
5/7/2012
87
FY2012
2017
Destroyer
DDG-117
Paul Ignatius
5/23/2013
92
FY2013
2018
Oiler
TAO-205
John Lewis
1/6/2016
75
FY2016
2020
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-4
Hershel “Woody” Williams
1/14/16
92
FY2014
2018
Destroyer
DDG-120
Carl Levin
3/31/16
81
FY2013
2020
Destroyer
DDG-124
Harvey C. Barnum Jr.
7/28/16
75
FY2016
2021
Destroyer
DDG-56
John S. McCain
7/11/2018c
81
FY1989
1994
Destroyer
DDG-133
Sam Nunn
5/6/2019
80
FY2020d
2026
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. Sources for dates when names of ships after DDG-
108 were announced: Navy announcements and news accounts on the naming of those ships.
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 originally procured in FY1992. Its procurement was suspended, and then reinstated in FY1996.
c. On July 11, 2018, the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain
(DDG-56), originally named for Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945) and Admiral John S. McCain Jr. (1911-
1981), to also include Senator John S. McCain III.
d. DDG-133 is one of three DDG-51 class ships requested for procurement in FY2020.
Ships Named for Confederate Officers
A June 15, 2017, blog post states the following:
Four [past U.S. Navy] ships have been named for Confederate officers: the [ballistic missile
submarine/attack submarine] USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601[/SSN-601]) [commissioned
1960; decommissioned 1983], the [ballistic missile submarine] USS Stonewall Jackson
(SSBN-634) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1995], the [submarine tender] USS
Hunley (AS-31) [commissioned 1962; decommissioned 1994], and the [submarine tender]
USS Dixon (AS-37) [commissioned 1971; decommissioned 1995]. H. L. Hunley built the
Confederate submarine that sank with him on board before it engaged in combat. A
subsequent Confederate submarine was built and named for him. Commanded by George
Dixon, the CSS Hunley carried out the world’s first submarine attack when it struck the
[sloop-of-war] USS Housatonic in February1864.
Congressional Research Service

16

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Currently in the fleet is the [Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser] USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62) [commissioned 1989], named for Lee’s greatest victory over the
U.S. Army. Chancellorsville also was the battle in which Gen. Thomas “Stonewall”
Jackson was mortally wounded by friendly fire.
The purpose of erecting monuments and naming U.S. ships after Confederates—enemies
of the United States—seems to be to recognize their perceived status as noble warriors
rather than to remember the cause for which they waged war: the dissolution of the United
States to preserve the “peculiar institution” of human slavery. This view of history is not
shared by millions of Americans who see the monuments to Confederates as glorifying,
even justifying the “lost cause” and the enslavement of humans.
Other ships have been named for enemies [of the United States], probably because they
were considered “noble warriors” too. [The ballistic missile submarine] USS Tecumseh
(SSBN-628) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1993]75 and [the harbor tug] USS
Osceola (YTB-129) [commissioned 1938; sold for scrapping 1973]76 were named after
American Indian leaders who fought wars against the United States.77
Regarding the Chancellorsville, the Navy states that the cruiser is
The first U.S. Navy ship named for a Civil War battle fought just south of the
Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers in Virginia (1–5 May 1863). Gen. Robert E. Lee, CSA,
who led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, held Gen. Joseph Hooker, USA, who
commanded the Union Army and Department of the Potomac, in position while Lt. Gen.
Thomas J. Jackson, CSA, enveloped the Union right flank, surprising and rolling up the
Federal’s right. Lee’s victory, combined with the urgent need to relieve pressure on
Vicksburg, Miss., prompted the South’s thrust into Pennsylvania that summer, resulting in
the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg.78
An August 16, 2017, press report states the following:
As America churns through a bloody debate over the place Confederate monuments occupy
in the modern day United States, a Navy cruiser named in honor of a Confederate Civil
War victory is unlikely to see its named changed, a service official said Wednesday
[August 16].

75 There were also earlier Navy ships named Tecumseh, including YT-273, a harbor tug placed into service in 1943,
renamed Olathe in 1962, and removed from service in 1975; a tug originally named Edward Luckenbach that was
completed in 1896, acquired by the Navy, renamed Tecumseh, and placed into service in 1898, and then served for
various periods, going repeatedly into and out of commission, from 1899 into the 1940s; and a Union Navy monitor
that was commissioned in 1864 and sunk in battle later that year against Confederate forces.
Primary source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
76 There were also earlier Navy ships named Osceola, including AT-47, an armed tug commissioned in 1898,
recommissioned in 1911, and struck from the Navy in 1922; a monitor originally named Neosho that served in the
Union Navy from 1863 to 1865, was renamed Vixen in 1869, was again renamed Osceola later in 1869, and sold in
1873; and a gunboat in the Union Navy that was commissioned in 1864 and decommissioned in 1865.
Primary source: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
77 Earl J. Higgins, “Confederate Monuments At Sea?” U.S. Naval Institute Blog, June 15 2017. See also Geoff
Ziezulewicz, “Meet the Navy Ships Named in Honor of the Confederacy,” Navy Times, August 15, 2017.
78 “Chancellorsville (CG-62), 1989-,” Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/chancellorsville—cg-62—1989-.html.
Congressional Research Service

17

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

The guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville [CG-62] was commissioned in 1989 and
derives its name from an 1863 battle considered to be the greatest victory of Confederate
Gen. Robert E. Lee....
But a Navy official speaking on the condition of anonymity Wednesday said that even
though the Chancellorsville is named after a Confederate victory, the name comes from a
battle, not an individual, and soldiers on both sides died.
The week-long battle resulted in major casualties for both sides—13,000 Confederates and
17,000 Union troops, according to the National Parks [sic: Park] Service.
The Navy official did say, however, that there remains a chance the ship’s crest could be
altered.
The predominance of gray in the ship’s crest speaks to “General Robert E. Lee’s
spectacular military strategies and his dominance in this battle,” according to the ship’s
website.
An inverted wreath also memorializes the Confederacy’s second-best known general,
Stonewall Jackson, who was mortally wounded in the battle.
While the rupture of the country during the Civil War is reflected in the crest, it also
features Jackson’s order to “press on.”
“Maybe that is worth re-looking at or redoing,” the official said. “There‘s a fine line.”79
Ships Named Several Years Before They Were Procured
In recent years, the Navy on a few occasions has announced names for ships years before those
ships were procured. Although announcing a name for a ship years before it is procured is not
prohibited, doing so could deprive a future Secretary of the Navy (or, more broadly, a future
Administration) of the opportunity to select a name for the ship. It could also deprive Congress of
an opportunity to express its sense regarding potential names for a ship, and create a risk of
assigning a name to a ship that eventually is not procured for some reason, a situation that could
be viewed as potentially embarrassing to the Navy. As noted earlier, the July 2012 Navy report to
Congress states the following:
At the appropriate time—normally sometime after the ship has been either authorized or
appropriated by Congress and before its keel laying or christening—the Secretary records
his decision with a formal naming announcement.80
At the end of the above passage, there is a footnote (number 3) in the Navy report that states the
following:
Although there is no hard and fast rule, Secretaries most often name a ship after Congress
has appropriated funds for its construction or approved its future construction in some
way—such as authorization of either block buys or multi-year procurements of a specific
number of ships. There are special cases, however, when Secretaries use their discretion to
name ships before formal Congressional approval, such as when Secretary John Lehman
announced the namesake for a new class of Aegis guided missile destroyers would be

79 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Navy Official: Ship Name Honoring Confederate Victory Unlikely to Change,” Navy Times,
August 16, 2017.
80 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.
Congressional Research Service

18

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Admiral Arleigh Burke, several years before the ship was either authorized or
appropriated.81
In connection with the quoted footnote passage immediately above, it can be noted that the lead
ship of the DDG-51 class of destroyers was named for Arleigh Burke on November 5, 1982,
about two years before the ship was authorized and fully funded.82
Recent examples of Navy ships whose names were announced more than two years before they
were procured include the following:83
 The destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000). On July 4, 2000, President Bill Clinton
announced that DDG-1000, the lead ship in a new class of destroyers, would be
named Zumwalt in honor of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the Chief of Naval
Operations from 1970 to 1974, who had died on January 2, 2000. At the time of
the naming announcement, Congress was considering the Navy’s proposed
FY2001 budget, under which DDG-1000 was scheduled for authorization in
FY2005, a budget that Congress would consider in 2004, which was then about
four years in the future.84
 The aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-80). As noted earlier, on December 1,
2012, the Navy announced that CVN-80, the third Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
class aircraft carrier, would be named Enterprise. At the time of the
announcement, CVN-80 was scheduled for procurement in FY2018, the budget
for which Congress was to consider in 2017, which was then more than four
years in the future.85 (CVN-80 was in fact procured in FY2018.)
 The ballistic missile submarine (SSBN-826) Columbia. As noted earlier, on
July 28, 2016, it was reported that the first Ohio replacement ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN-826) will be named Columbia in honor of the District of
Columbia. This ship is scheduled for procurement in FY2021, the budget for

81 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.
82 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 FY1985, and for other purposes.
83 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 email citing the case of the destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-
1000) and two other ships (the destroyer Arleigh Burke [DDG-51] and the amphibious ship San Antonio [LPD-17])
whose naming lead times were substantially less than that of the Zumwalt.
84 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.
85 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that
[Then-]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, [then-]
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. [Then-]Secretary Mabus believes
this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the Enterprise’s storied name on a future carrier.
(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.)
Congressional Research Service

19

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

which Congress is to consider in 2020, which in July 2016 was about four years
in the future.
 Three John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers. As noted earlier, on July 28, 2016, it
was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth John Lewis
(TAO-205) class oilers (i.e., TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl
Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth, respectively. In
2016, these five ships were scheduled for procurement in FY2018, FY2019,
FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, respectively, the budgets for which Congress has
considered or will consider in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively.
Thus, using the procurement dates that were scheduled in 2016, the name for
TAO-208 (Robert F. Kennedy) was announced about three years before it was to
be procured, the name for TAO-209 (Lucy Stone) was announced about four
years it was to be procured, and the name for TAO-210 (Sojourner Truth) was
announced about five years before it was to be procured. As discussed in the CRS
report on the TAO-205 class program, the first six ships in the TAO-205 class are
being procured under a block buy contract that Congress authorized as part of its
action on the FY2016 defense budget.86 The procurement of each ship under this
contract remains subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.87
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.88 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following:
In addition to receiving input and recommendations from the President and Congress, every
Secretary of the Navy receives numerous requests from service members, citizens, interest
groups, or individual members of Congress who want to name a ship in honor of a
particular hometown, or State, or place, or hero, or famous ship. This means the
“nomination” process is often fiercely contested as differing groups make the case that
“their” ship name is the most fitting choice for a Secretary to make.89
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

86 The contract was authorized by Section 127 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-92
of November 25, 2015).
87 Section 127 of P.L. 114-92 states that “Any contract entered into under subsection (a) [of Section 127] shall provide
that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose, and that total liability to the Government for termination of any contract entered into
shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at the time of termination.”
88 Dean Lohmeyer, “Students Who Helped Name the Navy’s Newest Sub Tour State’s Namesake,” Navy News Service,
October 25, 2008.
89 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.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 6 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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).90
Congress’s Role in Naming Ships
Overview of Congressional Influence on Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named,91 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).”92
 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.93
 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.94
 Section 1012 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of the
Congress that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald
R. Ford. The Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be
named Gerald R. Ford.
 In the 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

90 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.
91 For example, the 1819 and 1858 laws cited in footnote 1 set forth naming rules for certain kinds of ships. Today, 10
U.S.C. §8662(b) still requires that battleships (which the United States has not built since World War II) be named after
states.
92 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.
93 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.
94 The article, which reported on the ship’s official naming ceremony, states the following: “[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

21

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Committee. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named John Finn.95
 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.96
 On June 19, 2019, Senators Todd Young and Mike Braun introduced S.Amdt.
793, an amendment to the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1790)
expressing the sense of the Congress that the Navy should name the next DDG-
51 class destroyer for the late former Senator Richard Lugar.97 On November 13,
2019, at which point no further action on S.Amdt. 793 was recorded at
Congress.gov, the Navy announced that it would name a DDG-51 class destroyer
for Lugar.98
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.99
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
Examples of Legislation
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,

95 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
96 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
97 Congress.gov as of November 14, 2019, stated that the amendment was introduced by Senator Young. A press
release from Senator Young’s Office (Office of Senator Todd Young, “Young Announces Navy Ship to be Named in
Honor of Richard G. Lugar; Naming Ceremony Nov. 18 in Indianapolis,” November 13, 2019) states that the
amendment was introduced by Senators Young and Braun.
98 Source: email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, November 14, 2019. See also Office of Senator Todd
Young, “Young Announces Navy Ship to be Named in Honor of Richard G. Lugar; Naming Ceremony Nov. 18 in
Indianapolis,” November 13, 2019, accessed November 14, 2019, at https://www.young.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/young-announces-navy-ship-to-be-named-in-honor-of-richard-g-lugar-naming-ceremony-nov-18-in-
indianapolis.
99 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

22

link to page 32 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

and if Congress so desires, can also suggest or direct the Navy to take some action. The following
are three examples of such legislation:
 S.Res. 332 of the 115th Congress is an example of a measure that appears to
reflect support for an announced Navy ship-naming decision. This measure,
introduced in the Senate on November 15, 2017, and considered and agreed to
without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent the same day,
summarizes the military career of Hershel “Woody” Williams and
commemorates the christening of ESB-4, an expeditionary sea base ship named
for Williams (see “Legislative Activity in 2019”).
 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
January 20, 2010, and passed by the House on February 4, 2010, congratulates
the Navy on its decision to name a naval ship for Medgar Evers.
 H.Con.Res. 312 of the 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.100

100 An April 24, 1982, press report states the following:
House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill is asking the White House to change the name of the Navy’s
new nuclear submarine from the USS Corpus Christi to another title less offensive to Christian
groups.
O’Neill, D-Mass., suggested that the submarine be renamed the “USS City of Corpus Christi.”
In a telephone call he initiated Thursday to Michael K. Deaver, deputy chief of staff and assistant to
President [Ronald] Reagan, O’Neill said he found the name Corpus Christi to be inappropriate for a
nuclear-powered warship.
According to an O’Neill aide, Deaver replied that he would take the issue up with the president.
The USS Corpus Christi was named for the city in Texas. Corpus Christi is Latin for body of
Christ.
The Ad Hoc Corpus Christi Campaign, a group consisting of various Catholic and Protestant
laymen and clergy, opposed calling the submarine by its present designation.
O’Neill is a Roman Catholic.
Navy Secretary John F. Lehman, Jr., a Catholic, has defended the name USS Corpus Christi, saying
the submarine was not named for religious purposes but for the Texas city.
Other ships in the Navy’s history have carried the name USS Corpus Christi. The Navy has named
several of its other attack submarines after cities, for example the USS Los Angeles.
(Associated Press, “O’Neill Claims ‘Corpus Christi’ Inappropriate As Name for Sub,” Eugene
Register Guard, April 24, 1982, accessed August 18, 2016, at https://news.google.com/
newspapers?id=l7RQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5979%2C5358114.)
A December 30, 1982, press report states the following:
The vessel was the subject of an intense controversy last spring when Roman Catholic and other
religious leaders and peace activists objected to the original name Corpus Christi, which in Latin
means “Body of Christ.”
Congressional Research Service

23

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

USS Portland (LPD-27)
On April 12, 2013, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that LPD-27, a San
Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship, would be named for Portland, OR.101 LPD-27 is to be
the third Navy ship to bear the name Portland. The first, a cruiser (CA-33), was named for
Portland, ME. It was commissioned into service in February 1933, decommissioned in July 1946,
and maintained in reserve status until struck from the Navy list in March 1959. The second, an
amphibious ship (LSD-37), was named for both Portland, ME, and Portland, OR. It was
commissioned into service in October 1970, decommissioned in October 2003, and stricken from
the Naval Vessel Register in March 2004.
An April 18, 2013, press release from Senator Angus King stated that “U.S. Senators Susan
Collins and Angus King today sent a letter to Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, asking that
the USS Portland [LPD-27], a new San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship named after
the city of Portland, Oregon, also be named in honor of Portland, Maine, consistent with the long
history and tradition of U.S. Navy ships bestowed with the name USS Portland.”102 In reply, the

President Reagan ordered the name changed [to City of Corpus Christi] over the objections of Navy
Secretary John Lehman.
(“Sub City of Corpus Christi to Be Commissioned Jan. 8,” New London Day, December 30, 1982,
accessed August 18, 2016, at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RQQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=
a3UFAAAAIBAJ&dq=city-of-corpus-christi%20submarine&pg=6072%2C6185609.)
101 DOD Release No: 237-13, “Secretary of the Navy Names Multiple Ships,” April 12, 2013. The release states:
“Mabus named the future USS Portland (LPD 27) in honor of Oregon’s most highly populated city.”
102 Press release entitled “Senators Collins, King Request Ship Be Named After Portland, ME,” April 18, 2013,
accessed on December 11, 2017, at https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senators-collins-king-
request-ship-be-named-after-portland-me. The press release presents the full text of the Senators’ letter to then-
Secretary Mabus, which is as follows:
Dear Secretary Mabus:
On April 12, 2013, you announced that LPD 27, a new San Antonio-class amphibious transport
dock ship, will be named the USS Portland after the city of Portland, Oregon.
We were surprised that the press release did not state that the ship was also named in honor of the
city of Portland, Maine. We write to ask that you clarify that the ship will also be named in honor
of Portland, Maine, consistent with the long history and tradition of U.S. Navy ships bestowed with
the name USS Portland.
The Department of the Navy press release stated LPD 27 will be the third ship to bear the name
USS Portland. The press release failed to mention that both of the previous two ships were named,
in whole or in part, to honor the city of Portland, Maine. The first USS Portland (CA-33) was the
lead ship of a new class of heavy cruisers. Launched in 1932, it was named after the city of
Portland, Maine, and saw battle during World War II at the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle
of Midway, and the Battle of Guadalcanal. After accruing 16 battle stars, she was decommissioned
in 1946.
The second USS Portland (LSD-37) was commissioned in 1970 and served until 2004. The ship
was also named after the city of Portland, Maine, but it was also named after the city of Portland,
Oregon. The ship’s insignia incorporates the seals of both cities.
The third USS Portland should continue this tradition. We understand that amphibious transport
dock ships are named for major American cities, and we can assure you that Portland, Maine is the
largest city in Maine and the metro area is home to one-third of Maine’s entire population.
Portland also has a rich naval history. South Portland is where many Liberty cargo ships were built
that sustained the war effort during World War II, and 4,700 skilled shipyard workers repair Los
Angeles-class and Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines one hour to the south of Portland at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Portland also has the largest port in Maine, and it is home to men
and women whose livelihood relies upon the ocean and its resources, as demonstrated by the
historic and bustling working waterfront.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 31 link to page 31 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Navy sent letters dated April 24, 2013, to Senators Collins and King that stated the following in
part:
In addition to [the ballistic missile submarine] USS MAINE (SSBN 743), Secretary [of the
Navy Ray] Mabus recently honored the state of Marine through his naming of [the
expeditionary fast transport ship] USNS MILLINOCKET (JHSV 3) [now called T-EPF 3]
which was christened last weekend and will proudly represent our Nation as part of the
fleet for decades to come. The Secretary of the Navy has tremendous appreciation for the
state of Maine, its citizens and the incredible support provided by them to our Navy and
our Nation. However, Oregon is the only state in our Nation that does not currently have a
ship in the fleet named for the state, its cities or communities. Secretary Mabus named LPD
27 after Portland, Oregon, to correct that oversight and acknowledge the support and
contributions made by the men and women of Portland and Oregon.103
As noted elsewhere in this report, on October 10, 2014, the Navy announced that it was naming
the Virginia-class attack submarine SSN-793 for Oregon.
A May 21, 2016, Navy blog post about the ship’s christening states that “LPD-27 will be the third
Navy ship named Portland, honoring both the Oregon seaport and Maine’s largest city.”104 That
statement is not correct, as the Navy confirms that LPD-27 is named solely for Portland, OR.105 A
July 5, 2017, Navy News Service report states correctly that “LPD 27 is named for the city of
Portland, Oregon, and follows the World War II heavy cruiser CA 33 and the amphibious ship
LSD 37 as the third U.S. Navy ship to bear the name Portland.”106 LPD-27 is scheduled to be
commissioned in Portland, OR, on April 21, 2018.
Legislation on Future Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Table 3 shows past enacted provisions going back to the 100th Congress regarding future ship-
naming decisions. All of these measures expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or
House) about how a future Navy ship should be named.
Table 4 shows past examples of proposed bills and amendments regarding future ship-naming
decisions going back to the 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

We are confident that the impressive capabilities of LPD 27 and her crew can honor Portland,
Maine, without in any way reducing the simultaneous honor afforded to Portland, Oregon. In fact,
part of the rich history of Portland, Oregon, is that it was named after the city in Maine. In 1845,
two of the city’s founders, Asa Lovejoy of Boston, and Francis Pettygrove of Portland, Maine, each
wanted to name the new city after his original home town. After Pettygrove won a coin toss two out
of three times, the city was named after Portland, Maine. You can view the “Portland Penny” in
person at the Oregon Historical Society in downtown Portland, Oregon.
We request that you clarify that the USS Portland will be named in honor of Portland, Maine, as
well as Portland, Oregon. Given the history of both cities and the previous ships given the proud
name of USS Portland, we are confident that you will agree that doing so will greatly contribute to
the rich and storied history the USS Portland will carry with her as she and her crew defend our
nation.
For a press report, see Associated Press, “Navy Asked To Fix Snub Of Portland In Ship’s Name,” Boston Globe, April
20, 2013.
103 Letters dated April 24, 2013, from Pamela S. Kunze, Captain, U.S. Navy, Special Assistant for Public Affairs to the
Secretary of the Navy, responding on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, to Senators Collins and King, provided to
CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 13, 2013.
104 “Future USS Portland (LPD 27) Christened,” Navy Live, May 21, 2016.
105 Source: CRS email exchange with Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 13, 2017.
106 “USS Portland (LPD 27) Successfully Completes Builder’s Trials,” Navy News Service, July 5, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

25

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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.
Table 3. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions
Fiscal
Year
Public Law Bill
Section
Ship
Name(s)
2013
P.L. 113-6
H.R. 933
8119 of Division C the next available capital warship
Ted Stevens
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 (or of the Senate or
House) about how a Navy ship should be named.
Table 4. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments
[Congress] and Bill
Ship
Proposed name(s)
[116th] S.Amdt. 793 to S. 1790
Next DDG-51 class ship
Richard G. Lugar
[116th] S.Amdt. 764 to S. 1790
next available appropriate naval vessel Shannon Kent
[115th] S.Con.Res. 10
next nuclear powered submarine
Los Alamos
[113th] H.Res. 637
an appropriate Navy ship
Clifton B. Cates
[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
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 32 link to page 32 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

[Congress] and Bill
Ship
Proposed name(s)
[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
[100th] S.Amdt. 1354 to H.J.Res.
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
395
[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.
Legislative Activity in 2019
FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2500/S. 1790)
House (Floor Amendment)
On July 10, 2019, as part of its consideration of H.R. 2500 as reported by the House Armed
Services Committee (H.Rept. 116-120 of June 19, 2019), the House agreed to En Bloc No. 1, an
en bloc amendment that included, inter alia, Amendment No. 15 as printed in Part B of H.Rept.
116-143 of July 9, 2019, on H.Res. 476, providing for the consideration of H.R. 2500. The text of
Amendment No. 15 is as follows (emphasis added):
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new section:
SEC. 1092. PROHIBITION ON NAMES RELATED TO THE CONFEDERACY.
(a) Prohibition on Names Related to the Confederacy.—The Secretary of Defense may not
give a name to an asset that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States
Congressional Research Service

27

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

of America (commonly referred to as the “Confederacy”), including any name referring
to—
(1) a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy; or
(2) a city or battlefield significant because of a Confederate victory.
(b) Assets Defined.—In this section, the term “assets” includes any base, installation,
facility, aircraft, ship, equipment, or any other property owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense.
Senate (Floor Amendments)
On June 27, 2019, as part of its consideration of S. 1790 as reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee (S.Rept. 116-48 of June 11, 2019), the Senate agreed to by voice vote
S.Amdt. 764 as modified and amended, an amendment in the nature of the substitute that, inter
alia, added the following section to S. 1790:
SEC. 6016. Sense of Congress on the naming of a naval vessel in honor of Senior Chief
Petty Officer Shannon Kent.
(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon M. Kent was born in Owego, New York.
(2) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent enlisted in the United States Navy on December 10,
2003.
(3) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent was fluent in four languages and four dialects of Arabic.
(4) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent served five combat tours throughout 15 years of service
in the Navy.
(5) On January 16, 2019, at 35 years of age, Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent was killed in
a suicide bombing in Manbij, Syria, while supporting Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent
Resolve.
(6) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent was the recipient of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart,
two Joint Service Commendation Medals, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation
Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Joint Service Achievement Medal, among
other decorations and awards.
(7) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent was among the first women to deploy with Special
Operations Forces and was the first female to graduate from the hard skills program for
non-SEALs.
(8) Senior Chief Petty Officer Kent is survived by her husband and two children.
(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should
name the next available naval vessel appropriate for such name in honor of Senior Chief
Petty Officer Shannon Kent.
S.Amdt. 793 to S. 1790, introduced on June 19, 2019, states:
SEC. 1018. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE NAMING OF A DDG-51 CLASS
VESSEL IN HONOR OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD G LUGAR.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name the next unnamed
vessel of the DDG-51 Flight III class of destroyer warship in honor of work and legacy of
the Honorable Richard G. Lugar.
Congressional Research Service

28

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 these policies and
practices vary from historical policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of
the Navy, and an explanation for such variances;
 Assesses the feasibility and advisability of establishing fixed policies for the naming
of one or more classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the policies
recommended to apply to each class of vessels recommended to be covered by such
fixed policies if the establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible and
advisable; and
 Identifies any other matter relating to the policies and practices of the Navy for naming
vessels of the Navy that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
After examining the historical record in great detail, this report concludes:
 Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of
policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent
with ship naming customs and traditions.
 The establishment of fixed policies for the naming of one or more classes of vessels
of the Navy would be highly inadvisable. There is no objective evidence to suggest
that fixed policies would improve Navy ship naming policies and practices, which
have worked well for over two centuries.
In addition, the Department of the Navy used to routinely publish lists of current type naming
rules for battle force ships, and update it as changes were made to them. At some point, this
practice fell into disuse, leading to a general lack of knowledge about naming rules. To remedy
this problem, the Naval History and Heritage Command will once again develop and publish a list
of current type naming rules to help all Americans better understand why Secretaries of the Navy
choose the ship names they do. This list will be updated as required.107

107 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.
Congressional Research Service

29

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RS22478 · VERSION 173 · UPDATED
30