Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
Updated October 1, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS22478

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Summary
Names for Navy ships traditional y 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 cal ed for it to be
named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the
rules for naming Navy ships. Section 370 of the FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of
January 1, 2021) established a commission regarding the removal and renaming of certain assets
of the Department of Defense (including ships) that commemorate the Confederate States of
America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules
can be summarized as follows:
 The first and second SSBN-826 class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
have been named Columbia (in honor of the District of Columbia) and
Wisconsin. The Navy has not stated the naming rule for this class of ships.
 Until recently, Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines have general y been
named for states, but the four most recently named Virginia-class boats have
instead been named in honor of earlier U.S. Navy attack submarines.
 Of the Navy’s 15 most recently named aircraft carriers, 10 have been 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 first three FFG-62 class frigates have been named Constellation, Congress,
and Chesapeake, in honor of three of the first six U.S. Navy ships authorized by
Congress in 1794. The Navy has not stated the naming rule for this class of ships.
 Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) were named for regional y 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 smal 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.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 46 link to page 47 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix B. Name Change for Ex-U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Formerly Named Taney............... 42

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 43

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 traditional y 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, “T hat 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: “ T he vessels
of the Navy shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the directio n 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 exhauste d.” T he
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 T he 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 T itle 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 T itle 10 relating to the
Navy and Marine Corps. Sections 806 and 808 did the same for sections of T itle 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 sh ip 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 servicemembers, 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 bu ilt, 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 servicemembers, 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, “T he 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 45 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
(in most cases) 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 once given to battleships,
then later to nuclear-powered cruisers and bal istic missile submarines, and most recently to (in
most cases) Virginia-class attack submarines.9
The Naval History and Heritage Command states the following: “How wil the Navy name its
ships in the future? It seems safe to say that the evolutionary process of the past wil continue; as
the fleet itself changes, so wil the names given to its ships. It seems equal y safe, however, to say
that future decisions in this area wil continue to demonstrate regard for the rich history and
valued traditions of the United States Navy.”10 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.”11 The report also states that “Just as [ship] type naming conventions change over time
to accommodate technological change as wel as choices made by Secretaries, they also change
over time as every Secretary makes their own interpretation of the original naming convention.”12
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 cal ed for it
to be named for something else.13 The July 2012 report to Congress cites exceptions to ship-

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 October 1, 2021, 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 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) states: “ Each battleship 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.” T he Navy has not procured any new battleships (i.e.,
surface combatants larger than cruisers) since World War II. 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) does not prohibit the Navy from giving
state names to ships other than battleships.
10 Naval History and Heritage Command, “T he 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.
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. 10.
12 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.
13 Ohio (SSBN-726) class ballistic missile submarines, for example, were named for states, but one (SSBN-730) was
Congressional Research Service

3

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

naming rules dating back to the earliest days of the republic, and states that “a Secretary’s
discretion to make exceptions to ship-naming conventions is one of the Navy’s oldest ship-
naming traditions.”14 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.15 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.16 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.17 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: “Current ship naming policies

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. T iconderoga (CG-47) class cruisers were named
for battles, but one (CG-51) was named for T homas S. Gates, a former Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense.
14 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.
15 T he 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
pract ice 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 T raditionalists
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 T eam 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. T he first are Orthodox T raditionalists 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 fro m 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 Nam ing the
Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p p.
28-30. Italics as in original. See also pp. 37, 41, 42, 44, 47, 68, and 73.)
16 See, for example, Donald R. Bouchoux, “T he 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,
“T here’s a Lot in a Name,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2012: 88-89; Carl Forsling, “A Plan T o Fix T he
Navy’s Broken Ship Naming System,” Task and Purpose, May 6, 2015.
17 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 Nam ing the Vessels of the
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 38 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

and practices fal wel within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of
the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”18
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 SSBN-726, the first of its 12 planned next-generation
bal istic missile submarines Columbia, in honor of the District of Columbia.19 The 12 planned
boats are consequently now referred to as Columbia (SSBN-826) class boats.20 On October 28,
2020, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite stated that the second ship in the class
(SSBN-827), which is scheduled to be procured in FY2024, wil be named Wisconsin.21 The Navy
has not stated the naming rule for the Columbia-class boats.
The current USS Columbia (SSN-771)—a Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine that
was named for Columbia, SC; Columbia, IL; and Columbia, MO22—entered service in 1995 and
wil 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 scheduled commissioning of SSBN-826. This could
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)
As of October 1, 2021, the Navy had announced names for al 34 Virginia (SSN-774) class attack
submarines23 through SSN-807, which is the second of two Virginia-class boats that Congress

Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, pp. 46-47.
18 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. iii.
19 “Secretary of the Navy Names T hree 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. T he 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 Exam iner, July
29, 2016; “Document: Notice to Congress on 8 Proposed Navy Ship Names,” USNI News, August 3, 2016.
20 For more on the Columbia-class program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic
Missile Subm arine Program : Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
21 See, for example, Richard R. Burgess, “ SECNAV Selects USS Wisconsin as Name of Second Columbia SSBN,”
Seapower, October 28, 2020. T he previous ship named for Wisconsin—the battleship Wisconsin (BB-64)—was
decommissioned on September 30, 1991, and is now a museum ship in Norfolk, VA.
22 “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.
23 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 7 link to page 23 link to page 37 link to page 37 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

funded for procurement in FY2021. Until recently, Virginia-class boats were general y named for
states, with two exceptions:
 On January 8, 2009, then-Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announced that
SSN-785 would be named for former Senator John Warner.24
 On January 9, 2014, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that SSN-
795 would be named for Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who served for many
years as director of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program.25
The four most recently named Virginia-class boats have been named in honor of earlier U.S.
Navy attack submarines, as follows:
 On October 13, 2020, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite
announced that SSN-804 would be named Barb, in honor of two previous U.S.
Navy attack submarines that were so named.26
 On November 18, 2020, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that SSN-805 and
SSN-806 would be named Tang and Wahoo, respectively, in honor of two
previous Navy attack submarines named Tang and two previous Navy attack
submarines named Wahoo.27
 On January 15, 2021, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that SSN-807 would
be named Silversides in honor of two previous Navy attack submarines that were
so named.28
Whether these four boats represent four additional exceptions to the class naming rule or instead
reflect an amending of the class naming rule is uncertain. The Navy’s statement about the naming
of SSN-805 and SSN-806 stated the following:

Subm arine Procurem ent: Background and Issu es for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
24 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
fully funded. (T he ship was fully funded by the FY2010 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 111 th 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 traditio ns 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.)
25 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 13 , Table 1, 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.
26 U.S. Navy press release, “ Secretary Names Future Destroyer, Attack Submarine,” October 13, 2020. See also
Mallory Shelbourne, “ SECNAV Names Attack Boat After WWII USS Barb, DDG for Former SECNAV Lehman ,”
USNI News, October 13, 2020.
27 U.S. Navy news release, “SECNAV Names T wo Future Virginia-class Submarines T ang, Wahoo,” November 18,
2020.
28 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Vessels while aboard Historic Navy Ship,” U.S.
Navy, January 15, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

6

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

“The success in battle both previous namesakes endured will undoubtedly bring great pride
to the future crews of USS Tang and USS Wahoo,” said [then-Secretary] Braithwaite.
“Along with the previously named USS Barb (SSN 804), these boats will honor the strong
traditions and heritage of the silent service.”…
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
states. However, Braithwaite supports naming future submarines after past vessels with
historic naval legacies.
“Naming Virginia class submarines is a unique opportunity to reclaim submarine names
that carry inspirational records of achievement,” Braithwaite added.29
The Navy’s naming decisions for SSNs 804 through 807 can be viewed as responding to a
situation of the Navy currently not having many state names available to use in naming new Navy
ships. The 28 Virginia-class boats that to date have been named for states, together with 17 Ohio
(SSBN-726) class bal istic missile submarines (SSBNs) and cruise missile submarines (SSGNs)
named for states,30 one Columbia (SSBN-826) class SSBN named for a state (Wisconsin [SSBN-
827]), one Seawolf (SSN-21) class attack submarine named for a state (Connecticut [SSN-22]),
and one San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship named in part for a state (New York [LPD-
21]),31 make for a total of 48 in-service, under-construction, or planned ships that are named for
states. Navy plans cal for not retiring any of these 48 ships until FY2026, when retirements of
Ohio-class boats are scheduled to begin. The Navy’s shipbuilding plan, meanwhile, cal s for
procuring two Virginia-class boats per year in FY2022 and subsequent years.32 Virginia-class
boats procured in FY2022 and subsequent years would enter service in FY2028 and subsequent
years.
Over the next several years, the Navy can manage the situation of having not more than 50 states
for which ships can be named by amending the naming rule for the Virginia class, by maintaining
the state naming rule but making additional exceptions to the rule, and/or by giving Virginia-class

29 U.S. Navy news release, “ SECNAV Names T wo Future Virginia-class Submarines T ang, Wahoo,” November 18,
2020.
30 A total of 18 Ohio-class boats were built, of which 17 were named for states. (T he fifth boat in the class, SSBN-730,
was named for Senator Henry M. Jackson.) T he 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 Colum bia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Subm arine Program : Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
31 As discussed below in the section on amphibious ships (LPDs), San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are
being named in part for cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001. T hree LPD-17 class ships are so
named—New York (LPD-21), Arlington (LPD-24) (for the county in Virginia), and Somerset (LPD-25) (for the county
in Pennsylvania). T he Navy’s July 2012 report to Congress on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships,
however, states
On September 7, 2002, at a memorial service in New York City, [then -]Secretary [of the Navy
Gordon] England announced that LPD 21 USS would be named USS New York. On the face of it,
the choice was entirely consistent with the [LPD-17] type’s “ American cities” [naming]
convention. However, when making the announcement, Secretary England made clear that the
ship’s name honored far more than just a city. He named New York for the city and state of New
York, the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and for “ …all the great leaders in New
York who emerged after the tragic events [of 9‐11].”
(Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Nam ing the
Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p.
25. Ellipse, italics, and final bracketed portion as in original.)
32 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.
Congressional Research Service

7

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

boats the same state names as the earliest-retiring Ohio-class boats.33 (Ohio-class boats, however,
are currently scheduled to be retired in FY2026 and subsequent years at a rate of general y one
boat per year.)
The two state names that remain available for potential application to Virginia-class boats (or
other Navy ships) are Kansas and South Carolina (see section below on state names not currently
being used).
Aircraft Carriers (CVNs)
Overview
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that “while carrier names are stil ‘individual y
considered,’ they are now general y named in honor of past US Presidents.”34 Of the 15 most
recent aircraft carriers (those with hull numbers 67 through 81), 10 have been named for past U.S.
Presidents and 2 for Members of Congress.
The Navy is currently procuring Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class carriers.35 On January 16, 2007,
the Navy announced that CVN-78, the lead ship in the CVN-78 class, would be named for
President Gerald R. Ford.
On May 29, 2011, the Navy announced that CVN-79, the second ship in the class, would be
named for President John F. Kennedy.36
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.37 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 then-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

33 10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states: “ Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name.” Interpreting the phrase
“vessel of the Navy” to mean a ship that has been delivered to the Navy or commissioned into service with the Navy
would permit the Navy to name Virginia-class boats under construction for states whose names are assigned to Ohio -
class boats that are to be decommissioned before the Virginia-class boat s in question are to be delivered or
commissioned into service. Interpreting “vessel of the Navy” to refer additionally to ships that are under construction
for the Navy could require the Navy to defer the official act of naming one or more Virginia -class boats that are under
construction until Ohio-class boats with the same state names have been decommissioned.
34 Department of the Navy, A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy,
undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012, p. 37.
35 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.
36 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. T he 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.
37 “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.
Congressional Research Service

8

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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.38
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 FY1967.39
On January 20, 2020, at a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day ceremony, the Navy announced that the
fourth ship in the class, CVN-81, which Congress authorized in FY2019, would be named for
Ship’s Cook Third Class Doris Mil er, an African American enlisted sailor who in 1942 received
the Navy Cross (the Navy’s second-highest decoration awarded for valor in combat, following the
Medal of Honor) for his actions during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941.40 Mil er was the first African American sailor to receive the Navy Cross, and is recognized
as one of the first U.S. heroes of World War II.41 He died in 1943 aboard the escort carrier
Liscome Bay (CVE-56) when the ship was hit by a Japanese torpedo during the Battle of Makin
in the Gilbert Islands, which now constitute the main part of the country of Kiribati. CVN-81 is
the first U.S. aircraft carrier to be named for an African American and the first aircraft carrier to
be named in honor of a sailor for actions while serving in the enlisted ranks. It is the second Navy
ship to be named for Mil er; the first, FF-1091, a Knox (FF-1052) class frigate, was procured in
FY1967, commissioned into service in 1973, and decommissioned in 1991.42

38 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.
39 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 Con gress considered the FY1967 defense budget
that funded the procurement of CVN-68.
40 See Acting Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “Navy Will Name a Future Ford Class Aircraft Carrier After WWII
Hero Doris Miller,” Navy News Service, January 19, 2020 , which states
On Dec. 7, 1941, Miller was collecting laundry on the battleship West Virginia (BB-48), when the
attack from Japanese forces commenced. When the alarm for general quarters sounded he headed
for his battle station, an anti-aircraft battery magazine, only to discover that torpedo damage had
wrecked it. Miller was ordered to the ship’s bridge to aid the mortally wounded commanding
officer, and subsequently manned a .50 caliber Browning anti-aircraft machine gun until he ran out
of ammunition. Miller then helped move many other injured Sailors as the ship was ordered
abandoned due to her own fires and flaming oil floating down from the destroyed [battleship]
Arizona (BB-33). West Virginia lost 150 of its 1,500 person crew.
See also William Cole, “Navy to Name Aircraft Carrier for Pearl Harbor Hero Doris Miller,” Honolulu Star-
Advertiser, January 17, 2020; Johnny Diaz, “ Navy Aircraft Carrier to Be Named for Black Pearl Harbor
Veteran,” New York Times, January 18, 2020; Sam LaGrone, “Next Ford-Class Carrier to Be Named After
Pearl Harbor Hero Doris Miller,” USNI News, January 18, 2020; Laurel Wamsley, “U.S. Navy to Name
Aircraft Carrier After WWII Hero Doris Miller,” NPR, January 19, 2020; Carl Prine, “Navy’s Newest
Aircraft Carrier Named in Honor of African American Hero,” Navy Tim es, January 20, 2020; Jay Price, “ A
Military 1st: A Supercarrier Is Named After An African American Sailor ,” NPR, September 29, 2020.
41 See also T homas W. Cutrer and T . Michael Parrish, “How Dorie Miller’s Bravery Helped Fight Navy Racism,” Navy
Tim es, October 31, 2019; and Marcus S. Cox, “ WWII Review: Doris Miller, Pearl Harbor and the Birth of the Civil
Rights Movement,” HistoryNet.com, September 5, 2018.
42 FF-1091 was transferred to T urkey as a hulk in 1999 and sunk as a target in a T urkish naval exercise in 2001.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 23 link to page 43 link to page 42 link to page 23 link to page 35 link to page 46 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Two Carriers Named for Members of Congress—USS Carl Vinson and
USS John C. Stennis
The two aircraft carriers named for Members of Congress are USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), which
entered service in 1982 and is scheduled to remain service until about 2032, and USS John C.
Stennis (CVN-74), which entered service in 1995 and is scheduled to remain in service until the
late 2040s. As shown in Table 1, both of these ships are examples of U.S. military ships that were
named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
As shown in Table 3, in the 93rd Congress, provisions were proposed relating to the naming of
CVN-70 for Representative Carl Vinson. As shown in Table 2, the 100th Congress passed an
amendment relating to the naming of an aircraft carrier for Senator John Stennis. The amendment
was enacted as Section 8138 of the FY1988 Department of Defense (DOD) DOD Appropriations
Act, which formed part of H.J.Res. 395/P.L. 100-202 of December 22, 1987.43 Section 8138
stated, “It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should name one of the new
nuclear aircraft carriers appropriated in fiscal year 1988 [i.e., either CVN-74 or CVN-75] the
U.S.S. JOHN C. STENNIS.” As shown in Table 1, on June 23, 1988 (i.e., about six months after
the enactment of P.L. 100-202), President Reagan announced that CVN-74 would be named for
Stennis, and on December 19, 1988, the Navy official y named the ship for Stennis.
Some observers have raised the issue of whether CVN-74 should be renamed on account of
Senator Stennis’s positions on segregation and civil rights.44 A July 13, 2020, press report states
that U.S. Navy officials have “discussed renaming two aircraft carriers named after Southern U.S.
legislators who advocated racial segregation: the USS John C. Stennis and USS Carl Vinson.
Within the military, the Stennis has been nicknamed ‘Johnny Reb,’ a common nickname for
Confederate soldiers.”45
For some general background information regarding changes to the names of Navy ships, see the
section entitled “Changes to Names of Navy Ships” later in this report.
Destroyers (DDGs)
The Navy is currently procuring Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers.46 Destroyers
traditional y have been named for famous U.S. naval leaders and distinguished heroes. The July

43 T he provision was added to H.J.Res. 395 by S.Amdt. 1354, which was proposed by Senator T ed Stevens on
December 12, 1987, and agreed to in the Senate by voice vote on the same date.
44 See Robert Farley, “USS John C. Stennis: Does the U.S. Navy Need to Rename T his Aircraft Carrier?” National
Interest, May 30, 2021; Josh Farley, “ T wo aircraft carriers were named for ardent segregationists. Could they ever be
renamed?” Kitsap Sun, January 19, 2021; Katherine Hafner, “ One of America’s Aircraft Carriers Is Named for a
Segregationist. Some Want to Rename it,” Virginian-Pilot, July 1, 2020; Gina Harkins, “ Navy Ship Names Could Fall
Under Pentagon’s New Diversity Review,” Military.com , June 24, 2020; Geoff Ziezulewicz, “ John C. Stennis Was an
Ardent Segregationist. Is It T ime to Change the Carrier’s Name?” Navy Tim es, June 23, 2020; Bridget Naso,
“Controversy Over John C. Stennis Aircraft Carrier Name,” NBC San Diego, June 23, 2020; Reuben Keith Green, “The
Case for Renaming the USS John C. Stennis,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2020.
A somewhat similar issue arose regarding an ex-U.S. Coast Guard cutter originally named Taney that is owned by the
City of Baltimore and operated there as a museum ship. For information regarding the issue of this ship’s name, see
Appe ndix B.
45 Michael R. Gordon, “ Confederate Symbolism in the Military Stretches Far Beyond Flags, Base Names,” Wall Street
Journal, July 13, 2020. See also John Wilkens, “ Racial Justice T urns to Navy Ships Named for Confederate Battles,
Segregationists,” San Diego Union-Tribune, July 26, 2020.
46 For more on the DDG-51 program, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

10

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

2012 Navy report to Congress discusses this tradition and states more specifical y that destroyers
are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including
Secretaries of the Navy. Exceptions since 2012 include the following:
 On May 7, 2012, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-116 for a living
person,47 Thomas Hudner.48
 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.49
 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.50
 On July 28, 2016, the Navy announced that it was naming DDG-124 for a living
person, Harvey C. Barnum Jr.51
 On July 11, 2018, the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the
destroyer John. S. McCain (DDG-56) to include a living person, Senator John S.
McCain III.52

47 T hroughout this report, the term living person means a person who was living at the time the name was announced.
48 DOD News Release No. 352-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces DDG 116 to Be Named T homas Hudner,” May
7, 2012.
49 DOD News Release No. 361-13, “Navy Names Next T wo Destroyers,” May 23, 2013.
50 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 Tim es, April 5, 2016.
51 “Secretary Mabus Names Destroyer for Medal of Honor Recipient ,” Navy News Service, July 28, 2016.
52 T he Navy announced that it 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. A mong 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, Navy
notice 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.
Congressional Research Service

11

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

 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 1968.53
As of October 1, 2021, the Navy had announced names for al DDG-51 class destroyers procured
through DDG-137, the second of two DDG-51s procured in FY2021.
Frigates (FFG[X]s)
Current Navy plans cal for procuring a total of 20 Constel ation (FFG-62) class frigates.54 On
October 7, 2020, the Navy announced that the first ship in the class, FFG-62,55 which was
procured in FY2020, would be named Constellation, in honor of one of the first six U.S. Navy
ships authorized by Congress in 1794—the heavy frigates United States, Constellation,
Constitution, Chesapeake, Congress, and President.56 Ships in this class are consequently now
known as Constel ation (FFG-62) class ships. FFG-62 is the fifth Navy ship to be named
Constellation.
On December 2, 2020, in testimony to the Readiness and Management Support subcommittee of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite
announced that the second ship in the class, FFG-63, which the Navy has requested for
procurement in FY2021, would be named Congress, in honor of another one of those first six
ships. In his testimony, then-Secretary Braithwaite stated
So I'd like to take this moment to announce that the next Constellation-class frigate will be
named for one of those original six, a name selected by our first president, George
Washington. The ship will be USS Congress to honor and recognize the work that you and
your staff do every day to support our sailors, our marines and the people of the United
States of America. On behalf of the Department of the Navy, our marines, our sailors, our
civilian workforce and their families that serve at their side, thank you for what you do to
enhance our readiness. I look forward to your questions.57
Six previous U.S. naval ships have been named Congress, of which the frigate authorized by
Congress in 1794 was the third. The sixth Congress was a motor launch that the Navy acquired
and placed in service in 1918 and then sold in 1919.58
On January 15, 2021, then-Secretary Braithwaite announced that the third ship in the class, FFG-
64, would be named Chesapeake, in honor of another one of those first six ships.

53 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.
54 For more on the FFG-62 program, see CRS Report R44972, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
55 T he previous class of U.S. Navy frigates, the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class, ended with USS Ingraham
(FFG-61).
56 Department of the Navy, “SECNAV Names Navy’s Newest Class of FFG(X) Ships,” October 7, 2020.
57 Source: T ranscript of the hearing, which focused on Navy and Marine Corps readiness. See also Gina Harkins, “ T he
Navy is Naming its Next New Frigate USS Congress,” Military.com , December 3, 2020; Joseph T revithick, “ Navy
Boss T ells Congress T hat A New Frigate Will Be Named USS Congress. No, Really,” The Drive, December 2, 2020.
58 See U.S. Navy, Naval History and Heritage Command, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, accessed
December 3, 2020, at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html. See also Richard R.
Burgess, “SECNAV Selects USS Congress as Name of Second Constellation Frigate,” Seapower, December 2, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

12

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

The Navy’s announcements about the naming of FFG-62, FFG-63, and FFG-64 do not make clear
what the naming rule for the class wil be, because the Navy plans to procure many more than six
FFG-62 class ships. One possibility is that the ships wil be named for historic Navy ships in
general. Previous classes of U.S. Navy frigates, like Navy destroyers, were general y named for
naval leaders and heroes.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
A total of 35 littoral combat ships (LCSs) were procured through FY2019; there are no plans to
procure any more LCSs.59 Al 35 ships have been named. LCSs were at first named for U.S. mid-
tier cities, smal towns, and other U.S. communities.60 The naming rule was later adjusted to
regional y 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 Gabriel e Giffords.61 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 II and was scuttled after being damaged by Japanese attack in the
Battle of Savo Island on August 9, 1942.62 LCS-30 was named Canberra. 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.63 The situation of LCS-30 and L02 sharing
the same name wil 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.
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.64 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

59 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.
60 T he Navy named LCS-1 and LCS-2 Freedom and Independence, respectively, after multiple U.S. cities with these
names.
61 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 Nam ing the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012,
pp. 33-34.
62 Richard R. Burgess, “President T rump Names Navy LCS for World War II Australian Cruiser,” Seapower, February
23, 2018.
63 In between D33 and L02, there was also HMAS Canberra (FFG 02), a frigate that served in Australia’s navy from
1981 to 2005.
64 For more on the LHA program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship
Program s: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

13

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

named Tripoli, the location of famous Marine battles in the First Barbary War.65 The Navy
reaffirmed this name selection with a more formal announcement on May 30, 2014.66 On
November 9, 2016, the Navy announced that the third ship in the class, LHA-8, wil be named
Bougainville, the location of a famous World War II campaign in the Pacific.67
The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission presented the fourth ship in the class, LHA-9, as a ship
projected for procurement in FY2023. Consistent with congressional action on the Navy’s
FY2020 budget regarding the procurement of LHA-9, CRS reports treat LHA-9 as a ship that
Congress procured (i.e., authorized and provided procurement funding for) in FY2020. The Navy
has not announced a name for LHA-9.
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.68 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, wil be
named Harrisburg, for the city of Harrisburg, PA.69 LPD-30 is to be the first of a new version, or
flight, of the LPD-17 class design cal ed the LPD-17 Flight II design.70 On January 15, 2021, the
Navy announced that LPD-31, the next LPD-17 Flight II class ship, which Congress authorized
and provided procurement funding for in FY2020, would be named Pittsburgh, for the city in
Pennsylvania, making the ship the second LPD-17 Flight II class ship in a row named for a city in
Pennsylvania.
Oilers (TAOs)
On January 6, 2016, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Navy’s new
oilers wil be named for “people who fought for civil rights and human rights,”71 and that the first
ship in the class, TAO-205, which was procured in FY2016, wil be named for Representative

65 DOD News Release No. 347-12, “Secretary of the Navy Announces LHA 7 Will Be Named USS T ripoli,” May 4,
2012. T he 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 .
66 “SECNAV Formally Names USS T ripoli,” Navy News Service, June 2, 2014.
67 “SECNAV Names Next Amphibious Assault Ship,” Navy News Service, November 9, 2016.
68 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 Nam ing 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.
69 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Amphibious T ransport Dock Ship in Honor of the
city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,” Navy News Service, October 10, 2019.
70 For more on the LPD-17 Flight II program, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious
Ship Program s: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
71 Valerie Insinna, “Navy to Name Next Generation Oilers for Civil Rights Icons,” Defense Daily, January 7, 2016: 4.
Congressional Research Service

14

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

John Lewis.72 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.73
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.74 Al 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.75 The
Navy announced on May 18, 2011, that the 14th ship in the class would be named for civil rights
activist Cesar Chavez.76
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs)
Expeditionary fast transports (EPFs), which until May 2011 were being procured by the Army as
wel as by the Navy, were at first named for American traits and values. In December 2009, the
naming rule for EPFs was changed to smal U.S. cities. At some point between December 2010
and October 2011, it was adjusted to smal U.S. cities and counties.77 As of October 1, 2021, the
Navy had announced names for al EPFs through EPF-15, which was procured in FY2021.
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. On November 10, 2020, the Navy announced that ESB-6, which was procured in
FY2018, would be named for Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient

72 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Fleet Replenishment Oiler,” Navy News Service, January 6, 2016.
73 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.
74 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. T he first six ships in the class are being procured under a block buy contract.
75 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 Nam ing the Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13,
2012, pp. 21-22.
76 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 Nam ing 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 T AKE -1 class ships]. “ T hey 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.)
77 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

15

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Sergeant Major John L. Canley.78 A fifth ESB (ESB-7) was procured in FY2019. On January 15,
2021, the Navy announced that ESB-7, which was procured in FY2019, would be named for
Marine Corps veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Private First Class Robert E. Simanek.79
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 wil be
named for prominent Native Americans or Native American tribes.80 On June 21, 2019, the Navy
announced that TATS-7, the second ship in the class, would be named Cherokee Nation.81 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.82 On January
15, 2021, the Navy announced that the fourth ship in the class, TATS-9, would be named Lenni
Lenape in honor of the Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania,83 and that the fifth ship in the class,
TATS-10, would be named Muscogee Creek Nation in honor of the self-governed Native
American tribe located in Okmulgee, Oklahoma.84 The Navy has not yet posted names for the
sixth and seventh ships in the class, TATS-11 and TATS-12, which were procured in FY2021.
Aspects of Navy Ship Names
Two State Names Not Currently Being Used, Particularly Kansas
As noted earlier in the section on evolution over time in Navy ship-naming rules, state names
were once given to battleships, then later to nuclear-powered cruisers and bal istic missile
submarines, and most recently to (in most cases) Virginia-class attack submarines.85 As noted
earlier in the section on names for attack submarines, as of October 1, 2021, a total of 48 in-
service, under-construction, or planned Navy ships (47 of them submarines) are currently named
for states.
The two states whose names are not currently being used for active Navy ships are Kansas and
South Carolina. For some time, Kansas has been the state for which, by far, the most time has
passed since a ship named for the state has been in commissioned service with the Navy as a
combat asset, and for which no ship by that name is currently under construction. As of October

78 See, for example, Seapower Staff, “ SECNAV Names Future Expeditionary Sea Base USS John L. Canley,”
Seapower, November 10, 2020; Gina Harkins, “ Navy’s Newest Ship to Be Named for Marine Sgt. Maj. John Canley,
Vietnam War Hero,” Military.com , November 11, 2020.
79 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Vessels while aboard Historic Navy Ship,” U.S.
Navy, January 15, 2021.
80 “SECNAV Names New Class of T owing, Salvage and Rescue Ship Navajo ,” Navy News Service, March 12, 2019.
81 “SECNAV Names Newest T owing Salvage and Rescue Ship Cherokee Nation ,” Navy News Service, June 21, 2019.
82 “Secretary of the Navy Names Newest T owing Salvage and Rescue Ship Saginaw Ojibwe Anishinabek ,” Navy News
Service, July 26, 2019.
83 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Vessels while aboard Historic Navy Ship,” U.S.
Navy, January 15, 2021.
84 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “Navy Names Future Vessel to Honor Muscogee Creek Nation ,” U.S. Navy,
January 15, 2021.
85 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) states: “ Each battleship 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.” T he Navy has not procured any new battleships (i.e.,
surface combatants larger than cruisers) since World War II. 10 U.S.C. 8662(b) does not prohibit the Navy from giving
state names to ships other than battleships.
Congressional Research Service

16

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

1, 2021, it has been more than 99 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.86 The most recent ship named for South
Carolina—the nuclear-powered cruiser South Carolina (CGN-37)—was decommissioned on July
30, 1999.
On December 23, 2019, the Navy announced that SSN-802, and SSN-803, the two Virginia-class
attack submarines procured in FY2019, would be named for the states of Oklahoma and Arizona,
respectively.87 Prior to this naming announcement, Arizona and Oklahoma were the two states
after Kansas for which the most time had passed since a Navy ship bearing the state’s name had
been in commissioned service. The previous ships named for these two states were battleships
sunk in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941—the battleship Arizona (BB-
39), which was decommissioned on December 29, 1941, fol owing its sinking in the attack, and
the battleship Oklahoma (BB-37), which was raised and surveyed after the attack, found to be too
uneconomical to repair, and decommissioned in 1944.88 BB-39 now serves as a memorial.
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 Il inois, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and South Dakota,
respectively, DOD 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.”89 The July 2012 Navy report to Congress states the following: “Before deciding
on which names to select [for the five submarines], [then-]Secretary [of the Navy Ray] Mabus
asked for a list of State names that had been absent the longest from the US Naval Register.”90 In
its announcement of November 19, 2012, that the Navy was naming the Virginia-class attack
submarine SSN-791 for Delaware, DOD quoted then-Secretary Mabus as saying, “It has been too
long since there has been a USS Delaware in the fleet.”91
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.”92 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

86 T he Littoral Combat Ship Kansas City (LCS-22), named for the adjacent cities of Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas
City, KS, was procured in FY2015 and was commissioned into service on June 20, 2020 . Its name was announced in
July 2015 by then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.
87 Acting Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “Acting SECNAV Names T wo Newest Virginia-Class Subs for
Greatest -Gen Heroes of Pearl Harbor,” Navy News Service, December 23, 2019.
88 T he Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine Oklahoma City (SSN-723) entered service in 1988 and will
reach the end of its 33-year expected service life in 2021.
89 DOD News Release No. 264-12, “Navy Names Five New Submarines,” April 13, 2012.
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. 48.
91 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.
92 “SECNAV Names Virginia-class Submarine, USS Vermont,” Navy News Service, September 18, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 23 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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.”93
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 wil 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.”94
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 Il inois, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon,
Montana, Oklahoma, and Arizona, 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; September 2, 2015, and December
23, 2019, respectively.)
As discussed earlier in the section on rules for naming attack submarines, over the next several
years, the Navy can manage the situation of having not more than 50 states for which ships can be
named by amending the naming rule for the Virginia class, by maintaining the state naming rule
but making additional exceptions to the rule, and/or by giving Virginia-class boats the same state
names as the earliest-retiring Ohio-class boats.95 (Ohio-class boats, however, are currently
scheduled to be retired in FY2026 and subsequent years at a rate of general y one boat per year.)
Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy historical y has only rarely named ships for living persons, meaning (throughout this
CRS report) persons who were living at the time the name was announced. As shown in Table 1,
since the naming of CVN-70 for Carl Vinson in 1974, at least 24 U.S. military ships have been
named for living persons. With one exception (LCS-10, which was named for Gabriel e Giffords),
the persons in question were at least 73 years old at the time the name was announced. Eight of
the 21 naming decisions were announced between January 2012 and March 2016, including 3
announced in 2012 and 4 announced in 2016. In four of the nine most-recent instances, the ships
were named for current or former Members of Congress.

93 “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Names Virginia-Class Submarine USS Oregon,” Navy News Service, October
10, 2014.
94 “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.
95 10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states: “ Not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name.” Interpreting the phrase
“vessel of the Navy” to mean a ship that has been delivered to the Navy or commissioned into service with the Navy
would permit the Navy to name Virginia-class boats under construction for states whose names are assigned to Ohio -
class boats that are to be decommissioned before the Virginia-class boats in question are to be delivered or
commissioned into service. Interpreting “ vessel of the Navy” to refer additionally to ships that are under construction
for the Navy could require the Navy to defer the official act of naming one or more Virginia -class boats that are under
construction until Ohio-class boats with the same state names have been decommissioned.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 23 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 1. Ships Since 1973 Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time
Person’s
Fiscal
Year ship
age when
year ship
entered or
Hull
Date name
name was
was
is to 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
Gabriel e 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
2021
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-4
Hershel “Woody” Wil iams
1/14/16
92
FY2014
2018
Destroyer
DDG-120
Carl Levin
3/31/16
81
FY2013
2021
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
FY2020
2026
Destroyer
DDG-137
John F. Lehman
10/13/2020
78
FY2021
2027
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-6
John L. Canley
11/10/2020
82
FY2018
2022
Expeditionary Sea Base
ESB-7
Robert E. Simanek
1/15/2021
90
FY2019
2023
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 is the date that President Reagan announced that the ship would be named for Stennis. The Navy
official y named the ship for Stennis on December 19, 1988.
b. SSN-23 was original y procured in FY1992. Its procurement was suspended, and then reinstated in FY1996.
c. On July 11, 2018, the Navy announced that it was expanding the name of the destroyer John. S. McCain
(DDG-56), original y named for Admiral John S. McCain (1884-1945) and Admiral John S. McCain Jr. (1911-
1981), to also include Senator John S. McCain III.
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,96 NHHC does not believe that any ships had

96 Although President Nixon announced on November 18, 1973, that CVN-70 would be named for Carl Vinson, as
shown in Table 1, the name apparently was officially given to the ship on January 18, 1974.
Congressional Research Service

19

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

been named for a living person by the Navy as NHHC does not have records that would
indicate such.97
The July 2012 Navy report to Congress, noting a case from 1900 that was not included in the
above passage, states that
the practice of naming ships in honor of deserving Americans or naval leaders while they
are still alive can be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War. At the time, with
little established history or tradition, the young Continental Navy looked to honor those
who were fighting so hard to earn America’s freedom. Consequently, George Washington
had no less than five ships named for him before his death; John Adams and James
Madison, three apiece; John Hancock, two; and Benjamin Franklin, one.
The practice of naming ships after living persons was relatively commonplace up through
1814, when a US Navy brig was named in honor of Thomas Jefferson. However, after the
War of 1812, with the US Navy older and more established, and with the list of famous
Americans and notable naval heroes growing ever longer, the practice of naming ships after
living persons fell into disuse. Indeed, the only exception over the next 150 years came in
1900, when the Navy purchased its first submarine from its still living inventor, John Philip
Holland, and Secretary of the Navy John D. Long named her USS Holland (SS 1) in his
honor....
[In the early 1970s], however, Department of the Navy leaders were considering the name
for CVN 70. Secretary of the Navy John Warner knew the 93rd Congress had introduced
no less than three bills or amendments (none enacted) urging that CVN 70 be named for in
honor of Carl Vinson, who served in the House for 50 years and was known as the “Father
of the Two-Ocean Navy.” Although Secretary Warner felt Congressman Vinson was more
than worthy of a ship name, the former Congressman was still alive. Naming a ship for this
giant of naval affairs would therefore violate a 160-year old tradition. After considering
the pros and cons of doing so, Secretary Warner asked President Richard Nixon’s approval
to name CVN 70 for the 90-year old statesman. President Nixon readily agreed. Indeed, he
personally announced the decision on January 18, 1974....
In hindsight, rather than this decision being a rare exception, it signaled a return to the
Continental Navy tradition of occasionally honoring famous living persons with a ship
name. Since then, and before the appointment of current Secretary [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 s hips 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, occasionaly
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

97 Navy information paper dated February 28, 2012, provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, March 1,
2012.
Congressional Research Service

20

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

that their spirit will accompany and inspire the Team in battle, is sometimes exactly the
right thing to do.98
Ships Named for the Confederacy or Confederate Officers
Section 1749 of FY2020 NDAA
Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92
of December 20, 2019) prohibits the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset)
or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or
includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a
person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory.
The provision also states that “Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary
concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.”
Section 370 of FY2021 NDAA, Creating Naming Commission
Section 370 of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of
January 1, 2021) directs the Secretary of Defense to “establish a commission relating to
assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to
assets of the Department of Defense that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any
person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.” The provision also states
that “not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shal implement the plan submitted by the commission” and “remove al names, symbols,
displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of
America (commonly referred to as the ‘Confederacy’) or any person who served voluntarily with
the Confederate States of America from al assets of the Department of Defense.” The provision
states (emphasis added) that the term assets “includes any base, instal ation, street, building,
facility, aircraft, ship, plane, weapon, equipment, or any other property owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense.”
The commission created by Section 370 is referred to informal y as the Naming Commission and
formal y as the Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that
Commemorate the Confederate States of America or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with
the Confederate States of America.
Naming Commission to Decide Whether to Visit USNS Maury (TAGS-66) and
USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
A September 30, 2021, press report states:
A commission tasked with identifying military assets with names tied to the Confederacy
has not yet visited two ships that could be renamed.
The Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that Commemorate
the Confederate States of America or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with the
Confederate States of America, which goes by the shorthand “The Naming Commission,”
spent the past summer visiting military bases, mostly Army installations, which are named
after members of the Confederacy.

98 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

21

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Once it finishes visiting bases, the Naming Commission will look at its list of assets and
decide if it needs to visit ships, retired Adm. Michelle Howard, former vice chief of naval
operations and chair of the commission, said Thursday afternoon.
The two ships the commission could visit are USNS Maury (T-AGS-66) and USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62).
While visiting the bases, the commission members have met with military and community
leaders, Howard said. What that would look like for a vessel would be different because
there is less of a community around a ship.
The stakeholders would likely be sailors, former sailors and veterans that served on the
ship, she said, as well as Navy leadership....
The commission updated the House and Senate armed services committees Thursday
[September 30].99
Naming Commission Seeking Recommendations from Citizens for New Names
for USNS Maury (TAGS-66) and USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
On September 6, 2021, the Naming Commission began accepting recommendations from
interested citizens for new names for 10 Army posts and for the oceanographic survey ship USNS
Maury (T-AGS-66) and cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62).100 A September 7, 2021, press
report stated:
The Defense Department’s Naming Commission, tasked with rechristening everything in
the military that was named in honor of the Confederacy, unveiled its crowdsourcing
website on Monday [September 6].
The commission is taking suggestions from the public on what to call 10 Army posts and
two Navy ships named either for Confederate troops or to honor Confederate roots.
“As we work with the local communities, we welcome input from the American public,”
retired Navy Adm. Michelle Howard, the chair of the Naming Commission, said in a
release. “This feedback will help us determine names that appropriately reflect our military
today and recognize the courage, values and sacrifices of our military men and women.”
Up for renaming are Forts A.P. Hill, Lee, Pickett and Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Bragg, North
Carolina; Forts Gordon and Benning, Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Rucker, Alabama;
and Fort Polk, Louisiana; as well as the cruiser Chancellorsville and the oceanographic
survey ship Maury....
Missing from the list is the cruiser Antietam [CG-54], which earlier this year had been
under consideration.

99 Heather Mongilio, “Naming Commission Still Undecided How T o Handle Ships with Confederate T ies,” USNI
News, September 30, 2021.
100 T he website for submitting recommendations is https://www.thenamingcommission.gov/. T he website states:
T he Naming Commission has the important role of recommending names that exem plify our U.S.
military and national values. We are determined to gain feedback and insight from every concerned
citizen to ensure the best names are recommended. T o accomplish this monumental task, we are
engaging with local, city, state and federal leaders and communities. We also encourage all
interested citizens to submit naming recommendations here.
Congressional Research Service

22

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

“... it depends on whether or not you see Antietam as a Union victory,” Howard told
reporters in May, of the battle that ended in a sort of truce, with Confederate troops
withdrawing, though the Union took more casualties.101
USNS Maury, USS Chancellorsville, and USS Antietam are discussed further in the next section.
USNS Maury (TAGS-66), USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), and USS Antietam
(CG-54)
A May 21, 2021, press report states
The number of U.S. military assets that may need to be renamed as part of an effort to scrub
Confederate names could reach into the hundreds, the retired admiral leading the renaming
effort said Friday.
“I think once we get down to looking at buildings and street names, this potentially could
run into the hundreds,” retired Adm. Michelle Howard told reporters on a conference call.
Howard, a former vice chief of naval operations and the first African American woman to
command a U.S. Navy ship, is the chairwoman of the Commission on the Naming of Items
of the Department of Defense that Commemorates the Confederate States of America or
Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with the Confederate States of America, also known
as the Naming Commission….
In her update on the commission’s efforts Friday, Howard said its initial focus will be on
nine bases owned by the Department of Defense named after Confederate leaders….
The Navy, meanwhile, has identified at least one ship so far to look at for renaming,
Howard said: the USNS Maury, an oceanographic survey ship named after a commander
who resigned from the U.S. Navy to sail for the Confederacy.
The number of Navy ships identified for the renaming effort is expected to grow, with
Howard suggesting the USS Antietam guided mis sile cruiser as a possibility. The Battle of
Antietam is considered a strategic victory for the Union in the Civil War, but a tactical
stalemate.
“It depends on whether or not you see Antietam as a Union victory,” Howard said. “So that
needs more exploration behind what the ship was named. And we’ll work with—for any
of these where there’s battles—the intention at the time of the naming, what the purpose
and thought process was, the historical context behind that naming.”102
A July 13, 2020, press report states that “U.S. Navy officials have informal y discussed renaming
several ships, including the USS Chancel orsvil e, which is named after a Confederate victory,
and the USNS Maury, an oceanographic survey ship named after Matthew Fontaine Maury, who
served as superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory and later joined the Confederate
Navy.”103

101 Meghann Myers, “Here’s Your Chance to Help Rename Army Posts and Navy Ships Honoring the Confederacy,”
Military Tim es, September 7, 2021.
102 Rebecca Kheel, “Commission Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Military Assets Could Have Confederate Names Removed,”
The Hill, May 21, 2021. See also Meghann Myers, “ Fort Belvoir, Cruiser Antietam Under Consideration for Renaming
by DoD Commission,” Military Tim es, May 21, 2021.
103 Michael R. Gordon, “ Confederate Symbolism in the Military Stretches Far Beyond Flags, Base Names,” Wall Street
Journal, July 13, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

23

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

A June 24, 2020, press report states
The names of U.S. warships could face new scrutiny in coming months as the Pentagon
moves forward with a military-wide effort to target racial bias and prejudice in the ranks.
A Defense Department-wide review to improve inclusion and diversity will likely not only
look at military installation names, but those of Navy vessels too.
“While I cannot speak for these three groups of leaders who will provide recommendations
to the [defense secretary], I would personally expect that at least one of these groups wil
make specific recommendations regarding the naming of bases and ships,” Christopher
Garver, a Pentagon spokesman, told Navy Times.
Lisa Lawrence, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday [June 24] that
Defense Secretary Mark Esper is moving forward quickly, but deliberately, in setting up
the groups that will examine military issues related to diversity.
Like Army installations named for Confederate leaders, the names of at least two Navy
ships have been called into question in recent weeks as the country grapples with ongoing
protests for an end to racism and police brutality.
Retired Lt. Cmdr. Reuben Keith Green recently laid out his case for renaming the aircraft
carrier John C. Stennis in this month’s U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine….104
The nationwide debate has also resurrected questions over why the Navy has a guided-
missile cruiser named for the Battle of Chancellorsville, which the Confederacy won….
The name of the oceanographic survey ship Maury also has ties to the Confederacy, U.S.
Naval Institute News recently noted.105
A June 12, 2020, press report states
The focus nationally has been on U.S. Army bases named for Confederate military leaders,
but there are also two active Navy ships connected to the Confederacy—[the] guided-
missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) and [the] oceanographic survey ship USNS
Maury (T-AGS-66).
Maury, delivered in 2016, was named for Matthew Fontaine Maury. While in the U.S.
Navy, Maury oversaw the Naval Observatory and was instrumental in laying the
foundation of modern oceanography. Murray resigned from the U.S. Navy and served in
the Confederate Navy. He spent the majority of the Civil War in Europe attempting to drum
up support for the Confederacy.106

104 T he name of USS John C. Stennis was discussed earlier in the section on names of aircraft carriers.
105 Gina Harkins, “ Navy Ship Names Could Fall Under Pentagon’s New Diversity Review,” Military.com , June 24,
2020.
106 In addition to T AGS-66, three previous Navy ships were also named for Maury. An online biography of Matthew
Fontaine Maury states: “Nicknamed ‘Pathfinder of the Seas,’ Matthew Fontaine Maury made important contributions
to charting wind and ocean currents. His studies proved that by following the winds and currents ships could cross the
ocean in fewer days than ever before…. With the outbreak of the Civil War, Maury, a Virginian, resigned his
commission as a U.S. Navy commander and joined the Confederacy. He spent the war in the South, as well as abroad
in England, acquiring ships for the Confederacy.” (National Museum of the U.S. Navy, “ Matthew Fontaine Maury
[1806-1873]),” published April 19, 2019, accessed June 11, 2020, at https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/
museums/nmusn/education/distance-learning/to-the-ends-of-the-earth/navigation/biography—matthew-fontaine-
maury.html.) See also T im St. Onge, “ Scientist of the Seas: T he Legacy of Matthew Fontaine Maury ,” Library of
Congress, July 25, 2018, accessed June 11, 2020, at https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2018/07/scientist-of-the-seas-the-
legacy-of-matthew-fontaine-maury/.
Congressional Research Service

24

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Chancellorsville, commissioned in 1989, is named for the Confederate victory in 1863 by
the Army of Northern Virginia led by Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
The Ticonderoga-class of cruisers are named for American battles—including several Civil
War conflicts. Unlike USS Vick sburg (CG-69) or USS Mobile Bay (CG-53),
Chancellorsville is named for a clear Confederate victory that paved the way for the Army
of Northern Virginia’s invasion of Pennsylvania and the Battle of Gettysburg.
The hull of the cruiser contains minié balls and shell fragments from the battle, USA Today
reported in 1988. As of at least 2016, the ship’s wardroom held a painting of Lee and
Jackson.107
The Navy states that the Chancellorsville is
[t]he 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.108
Regarding the Chancellorsville, a June 9, 2020, press report stated
[A spokesman for Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday ], Cmdr. Nathan
Christensen, declined to comment as to whether the sea service planned to change the name
of the warship Chancellorsville, commissioned in 1989 and named after a Confederate
victory during the Civil War….
An image on the command’s official website shows an image featuring several renderings
of the Confederate flag.109
Also regarding the Chancellorsville, 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, 2017].
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....

107 Sam LaGrone, “ Senate Bill to Purge Confederate Names from U.S. Military Could Affect T wo Navy Ships,” USNI
News, June 12, 2020.
108 “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.
109 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “CNO Says No More Confederate Battle Flags in Public Spaces and Work Areas,” Navy Times,
June 9, 2020. For additional press reports about the CNO’s statement, see, for example, Idrees Ali, “ U.S. Navy to Bar
Confederate Flags from Ships, Aircraft, Bases,” Reuters, June 9, 2020; Robert Burns (Associated Press), “ Navy Bans
Display of Confederate Battle Flag as Military Leaders Consider Renaming Bases,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, June 9,
2020; Ryan Browne, “ US Navy Joins Marines in Moving to Ban Confederate Battle Flag,” CNN, June 9, 2020; Paul D.
Shinkman, “ Navy to Ban Confederate Flag Following Marine Corps Order,” U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2020;
Caitlin McFall, “ Navy Moves to Ban Confederate Flag,” Fox News, June 9, 2020; Zachary Halaschak, “US Navy
Moves to Ban Display of Confederate Battle Flag,” Washington Exam iner, June 9, 2020; David Martin, Jordan
Freiman, and Li Cohen, “ U.S. Navy to Ban All Public Displays of the Confederate Flag,” CBS News, June 10, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

25

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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.”110
Past U.S. Navy Ships Named for Confederate Officers
A June 15, 2017, blog post states that past U.S. Navy ships that have been named for Confederate
officers include
the [ballistic missile submarine/attack submarine] USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601[/SSN-
601]) [commissioned 1960; decommissioned 1983], the [ballistic missile submarine] USS
Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634) [commissioned 1964; decommissioned 1995], the
[submarine tender] USS Hunley (AS-31) [commissioned 1962; decommissioned 1994],
and the [submarine tender] USS Dixon (AS-37) [commissioned 1971; decommissioned
1995]. H. L. Hunley built the Confederate submarine that sank with him on board before it
engaged in combat. A subsequent Confederate submarine was built and named for him.
Commanded by George Dixon, the CSS Hunley carried out the world’s first submarine
attack when it struck the [sloop-of-war] USS Housatonic in February1864.
Currently in the fleet is the [Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruiser] USS
Chancellorsville (CG-62) [commissioned 1989], named for Lee’s greatest victory over the
U.S. Army. Chancellorsville also was the battle in which Gen. Thomas “Stonewal”
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]111 and [the harbor tug] USS

110 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Navy Official: Ship Name Honoring Confederate Victory Unlikely to Change,” Navy Times,
August 16, 2017.
111 T here were also earlier Navy ships named T ecumseh, 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 T ecumseh, and placed into service in 1898, and then served for
various periods, going repeatedly into and out of comm ission, from 1899 into the 1940s; and a Union Navy monitor
Congressional Research Service

26

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Osceola (YTB-129) [commissioned 1938; sold for scrapping 1973]112 were named after
American Indian leaders who fought wars against the United States.113
In addition to the ships mentioned above, other past Navy (USS) or Military Sealift Command
(USNS) ships named for Confederate officers, as identified by one observer, include
 the destroyer USS Buchanan (DDG-14) (commissioned 1962; decommissioned
1991);
 the destroyer USS Semmes (DDG-18) (commissioned 1962; decommissioned
1991);
 the destroyer USS Tattnall (DDG-19) (commissioned 1963; decommissioned
1991);
 the destroyer USS Waddell (DDG-24) (commissioned 1964; decommissioned
1992);
 the frigate USS Brooke (FFG-1) (commissioned 1966; decommissioned 1988);
 the frigate USS Richard L. Page (FFG-5) (commissioned 1967; decommissioned
1988);
 the oceanographic research ship USNS Lynch (TAGOR-7) (entered service 1965,
placed out of service 1994); and
 the above-mentioned surveying ship USNS Maury (TAGS-66) (entered service
2016; currently in service).114
February 2021 Navy Report on Inclusion and Diversity
A February 2021 Navy report on inclusion and diversity (I&D) in the Navy115 made numerous
recommendations, including one (number 5.7) bearing on Navy ships named for the Confederacy
or Confederate officers that states
This Initiative Is an Opportunity to Honor and Name Navy Assets for Naval Heroes.
Topic: Modernize process to name ships, buildings, streets in honor of national & historical
Naval Figures (5.7)
Problem Statement
Certain Navy ship names have been highlighted by Congress and in the media for
connections to confederate or white supremacist ideologies. Without a comprehensive
database or review of current Navy names, it is unclear whether the body of Navy names

that was commissioned in 1864 and sunk in battle later that year against Confederate forces.
Primary source: Dictionary of Am erican Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
112 T here 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 Am erican Naval Fighting Ships, accessed October 27, 2017, at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html.
113 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.
114 Source: Emails to CRS from Steven Wills, Center for Naval Analysis, June 11 and June 22, 2020.
115 U.S. Navy, Task Force One Navy, Our Navy Team —Navigating A Course To True North, Final Report, undated,
released February 3, 2021, 141 pp.
Congressional Research Service

27

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

is consistent with Navy Core Values and representative and inclusive of the truly diverse
population of the Navy, today and throughout the Navy’s rich history.
Following a review of internal Navy practices and Congressional Research Service (CRS)
documentation, there appears to be no consolidated database, process or effort within the
Navy to review the names of Navy assets in order to ensure that the names reflect t he Navy
Core Values. This initiative is an opportunity to honor and name Navy assets for Naval
heroes from all classes, races, genders and backgrounds.
Recommendations
Initiate Systematic Review to Identify and Rename Navy Assets in Need of Modernization
Consistent with Navy Core Values.
1. Review should identify assets honoring those associated with the Confederacy and
identify assets named after racist, derogatory or culturally insensitive persons, events
or language.
2. Renaming recommendations and decisions should be consistent with current naming
authorities, policies and practices, with a focus on honoring persons of historicaly
underrepresented demographics, including racial minorities, women and enlisted
members.
3. The method and timeline of review is flexible, however, a stakeholder-led committee
could oversee the consolidation of Navy asset names and lead the review and
recommendation process.
• The general membership, strategy and mission statement of the committee may be
subject to amendment post-enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021.
• The committee would compile the lists of names for review, delegate as needed (e.g.,
requesting installation commanders to provide lists of installations buildings and
streets named after persons pursuant to OPNAVINST 5030.12H);116 coordinate with
ethics and history experts to identify assets for renaming; serve as a central repository
for questions and renaming requests; and propose new names. This course of action
(COA) offers thoroughness and consistency. Additionally, the committee could
consist of persons who may already possess the expertise necessary to perform these
tasks, for example, personnel from OPNAV N17, NHHC, CNIC, NAVFAC and
commands possessing authority and ownership over weapons systems, afloat and
aviation assets such as NAVSEA and NAVAIR.117
• Memorialize the process and membership of the committee by either updating the
OPNAVINST 5030.12H, other relevant naming authorities or by simply crafting an
order from the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] outlining the expectations for the
committee and the period of review.
i. Success will be measured when 1) the Committee is stood up (1-3 months); 2)
the Committee produces a consolidated database or list of Navy asset names (3-6
Months); 3) when the Committee provides an overview of the current health of
the Navy’s body of asset names, including any names which are currently
problematic and a recommendation on how to upgrade them (6-9 months); 4)
when current policies/ instructions are updated to reflect the makeup of the
Committee and the expectations for future responsibilities and authorities (6-12
months); and 5) When the CNO and Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) make asset

116 An OPNAVINST is an instruction issued by the Chief of Naval Operations.
117 OPNAV N17 is the 21st Century Sailor Office (N17) within the office of the Chief of the Chief of Naval Operations
(OPNAV). NHHC is the Naval History and Heritage Command. CNIC is the Commander, Navy Installations
Command. NAVFAC is the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command. NAVSEA is the Naval Sea Systems
Command. NAVAIR is the Naval Air Systems Command.
Congressional Research Service

28

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

naming decisions based on the current body of Navy asset names and
consideration of a broad range of possible names that reflect diversity and
inclusion (6-12 months).
ii. Following the Committee’s work to create a comprehensive list or database,
efforts must be taken to keep the list up to date. That sustainment review can be
ongoing or periodic (yearly or 5-10 years). As the list/database is a living
document, updates must be made as new names come online. Updates could be
submitted through the OPNAV staff for updating or a stakeholder from the
committee could be assigned this responsibility as a running requirement.
Supporting Information
While OPNAVINST 5030.12H requires installation commanders to develop and maintain
lists of streets, facilities and structures named after persons, there is no additional process
set out in the ins truction for consolidated or periodic review of such lists.118
June 9, 2020, CNO Statement Regarding Removal of Confederate Battle Flag
On June 9, 2020, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Michael Gilday, stated
Today, I directed my staff to begin crafting an order that would prohibit the Confederate
battle flag from all public spaces and work areas aboard Navy installations, ships, aircraft
and submarines. The order is meant to ensure unit cohesion, preserve good order and
discipline, and uphold the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment.119
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 eventual y is not procured for some reason, a situation that could
be viewed as potential y 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.120
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

118 U.S. Navy, Task Force One Navy, Our Navy Team —Navigating A Course To True North, Final Report, undated,
released February 3, 2021, pp. 55-56. See also Gina Harkins, “ Navy T ask Force Calls for Changing Ship Names that
Honor Confederacy,” Military.com , February 3, 2021.
119 USNavyCNO, tweet of June 9, 2020, accessed June 10, 20 20, at https://twitter.com/USNavyCNO/status/
1270451752459010049. See also Julia Bergman, “ Pressure Increases on Coast Guard to Ban Confederate Flag,” New
London Day, July 2 (updated July 3), 2020.
120 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

29

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

number of ships. There are special cases, however, when Secretaries use their discretion to
name ships before formal Congressional approval, such as when Secretary John Lehman
announced the namesake for a new class of Aegis guided missile destroyers would be
Admiral Arleigh Burke, several years before the ship was either authorized or
appropriated.121
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.122
Recent examples of Navy ships whose names were announced more than two years before they
were procured include the following:123
 The destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000). On July 4, 2000, President Bil 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.124
 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.125 (CVN-80 was in fact procured in FY2018.)
 The ballistic missile submarine Columbia (SSBN-826). As noted earlier, on
July 28, 2016, it was reported that the first Ohio replacement bal istic missile

121 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.
122 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.
123 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 Zum walt (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 Zum walt.
124 T he 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.
125 T he July 2012 Navy report to Congress states that
[T hen-]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. [T hen-]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 Nam ing the
Vessels of the Navy, undated but transmitted to Congress with cover letters dated July 13, 2012,
p. 37.)
Congressional Research Service

30

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

submarine (SSBN-826) wil be named Columbia in honor of the District of
Columbia. This ship is scheduled for procurement in FY2021, the budget for
which Congress is to consider in 2020, which in July 2016 was about four years
in the future.
 Three John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers. As noted earlier, on July 28, 2016, it
was reported that the Navy would name the second through sixth John Lewis
(TAO-205) class oilers (i.e., TAOs 206 through 210) for Harvey Milk, Earl
Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth, respectively. In
2016, these five ships were scheduled for procurement in FY2018, FY2019,
FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, respectively, the budgets for which Congress has
considered or wil 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.126 The procurement of each ship under this
contract remains subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.127
 The ballistic missile submarine Wisconsin (SSBN-827). As noted earlier, on
October 28, 2020, then-Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite stated that the
second Columbia (SSBN-826) class bal istic missile submarine wil be named
Wisconsin. SSBN-827 is scheduled for procurement in FY2024. Thus, the name
for SSBN-827 was announced about three years before it is to be procured.
Changes to Names of Navy Ships
The names of Navy ships are sometimes changed. A June 14, 2020, press report states
The Navy generally refrains from renaming its ships once they’ve entered service. Politics
and social mores certainly play a part in choosing the names of new ships, and it is not
unusual for a ship to be renamed one or more times prior to entering service, but it would
be quite unusual for ships to be renamed in service due to changing sensitivities.
Renamings usually take place because of an imperative to quickly honor a person or event.
They can also accompany a change in function such as converting a ship to a different
purpose or because a naming scheme for a certain class of ships might change. Other
changes might be for stylistic or administrative reasons and in those cases the core names
are retained even if the rendering changes. Prior to construction names have often been
swapped among ships of a class for a variety of reasons, including the symbolism of
building a particularly-named ship in a particular state or city.
Ships acquired from private or other sources have also frequently been renamed, especialy
ships transferred from the US Army or US Coast Guard to naval service. Hundreds of ships

126 T he contract was authorized by Section 127 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1356/P.L. 114-
92 of November 25, 2015).
127 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 Gover nment for termination of any contract entered into
shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at the time of termination.”
Congressional Research Service

31

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

transferred from other government agencies such as the Maritime Commission or the
Maritime Administration have been renamed upon being acquired for US Navy service.128
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, DOD, 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.129 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 servicemembers, 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.130
Members of the public may also express their opposition to an announced naming decision. The
July 2012 Navy report to Congress cites and discusses five recent examples of ship-naming
decisions that were criticized by some observers: the destroyer DDG-1002 (named for President
Lyndon Johnson), the Littoral Combat Ship LCS-10 (named for former Representative Gabriel e
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).131

128 Christopher P. Cavas, “Renaming US Navy Ships,” Defense & Aerospace Report, June 14, 2020. Regarding the
names of certain Civil War-era ironclad monitors, one blog post states
[T hen-]Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles directed that new vessels being built should illustrate
the pride of the American nation by having distinctly American names. As a result, many of the
monitors received names of American rivers, lakes, mountains, cities or Indian tribes. T his practice
created a list of names that in some cases proved nearly unpronounceable. T he practice
nevertheless remained in place until 1869, when the new Secretary of the Navy, Adolph A. Borie,
ordered the wholesale renaming of ships, often adopting new names based on classical Greek
figures or gods. T his practice has somewhat complicated for many the tracing of these Civil War
era ships.
(“Later Ironclads,” USS Monitor Center at T he Mariners Museum & Park, undated, accessed July
16, 2020, at https://www.monitorcenter.org/later-ironclads/.)
129 Dean Lohmeyer, “Students Who Helped Name the Navy’s Newest Sub T our State’s Namesake,” Navy News
Service, October 25, 2008.
130 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 p. 12-13.
131 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.
Congressional Research Service

32

link to page 5 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

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,132 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).”133
 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.134
 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.135
 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 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 Wil iam Finn. The
measure was not acted on after being referred to the House Armed Services
Committee. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named John Finn.136
 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

132 For example, the 1819 and 1858 laws cited in footnote 1 set forth naming rules for certain kinds of ships. T oday, 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.
133 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.
134 Patrick Pexton, “Clinton Compromise: Carriers T ruman And Reagan,” Navy Times, February 13, 1995: 19. See also
“Navy Announces Aircraft Carrier T o Be Named For President T ruman,” Associated Press, February 2, 1995. CVN-75
had been preliminarily named the United States.
135 T he 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.)
136 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

33

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Peralta. On February 15, 2012, the Navy announced that DDG-113, an Arleigh
Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer, would be named Rafael Peralta.137
 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.138 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.139
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.140
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,
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” Wil iams and

137 DOD News Release No. 109-12, “Navy Names Five New Ships,” February 15, 2012.
138 Congress.gov states that the amendment was introduced by Senator Young. A press release from Senator Young’s
Office (Office of Senator T odd 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.
139 Source: email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, November 14, 2019. See also Office of Senator
T odd 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.
140 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

34

link to page 44 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

commemorates the christening of ESB-4, an expeditionary sea base ship named
for Wil iams (see “Legislative Activity in 2021”).
 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.141

141 An April 24, 1982, press report states the following:
House Speaker T homas P. O’Neill is asking the White House t o 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 T hursday 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.
T he USS Corpus Christi was named for the city in T exas. Corpus Christi is Latin for body of
Christ.
T he 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 T exas city.
Other ships in the Navy’s history have carried the name USS Corpus Christi. T he 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=MuIDAAA AIBAJ&pg=5979%2C5358114.)
A December 30, 1982, press report states the following:
T he 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.”
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.)
Another apparent recent case of a ship’s name being amended to insert “City of” prior to the remainder of the
name concerns the Expeditionary Fast T ransport City of Bism arck (EPF-9). DOD’s June 6, 2013, news
release about the naming of this ship (then referred to as a Joint High Speed Vessel, or JHSV) and four other
Congressional Research Service

35

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.142 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.”143 In reply, the

ships states:
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today the next three joint high speed vessels (JHSV)
will be named USNS Yuma, USNS Bismarck and USNS Burlington, and two littoral combat ships
(LCS) will be named USS Billings and USS T ulsa…. USNS Bismarck (JHSV 9) is the first naval
vessel to be named in honor of North Dakota’s capital city.
(Department of Defense news release, “ Navy Names Multiple Ships,” June 6, 2013, copy accessed
November 20, 2020, at https://web.archive.org/web/20130924221057/http://www.defense.gov/
releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16077.)
By the time of the ship’s christening in May 2017, the ship’s name had been changed to City of
Bism arck. (See Department of Defense news release, “ Navy to Christen Expeditionary Fast
T ransport City of Bismarck,” May 11, 2017, accessed November 20, 2020, at
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1179499/navy-to-christen-
expeditionary-fast-transport -city-of-bismarck/.)
142 DOD Release No: 237-13, “Secretary of the Navy Names Multiple Ships,” April 12, 2013. T he release states:
“Mabus named the future USS Portland (LPD 27) in honor of Oregon’s most highly populated city.”
143 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. T he 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.
T he Department of the Navy press release stated LPD 27 will be the third ship to bear the name
USS Portland. T he 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. T he 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.
T he second USS Portland (LSD-37) was commissioned in 1970 and served until 2004. T he ship
was also named after the city of Portland, Maine, but it was also named after the city of Portland,
Oregon. T he ship’s insignia incorporates the seals of both cities.
T he third USS Portland should continue this tradition. We understand th at amphibious transport
Congressional Research Service

36

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.144
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 wil be the third
Navy ship named Portland, honoring both the Oregon seaport and Maine’s largest city.”145 That
statement is not correct, as the Navy confirmed that LPD-27 is named solely for Portland, OR.146
A July 5, 2017, Navy News Service report stated 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.”147 LPD-27 was commissioned
into service on December 14, 2017.

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.
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. I n 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 T o Fix Snub Of Portland In Ship’s Name,” Boston Globe, April
20, 2013.
144 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.
145 “Future USS Portland (LPD 27) Christened,” Navy Live, May 21, 2016.
146 Source: CRS email exchange with Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 13, 2017.
147 “USS Portland (LPD 27) Successfully Completes Builder’s T rials,” Navy News Service, July 5, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

37

link to page 42 link to page 43 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Legislation on Future Navy Ship-Naming Decisions
Table 2 shows past enacted provisions going back to the 100th Congress regarding future ship-
naming decisions. Al of these measures except the first one listed were nonmandatory provisions
that expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or House) about how a future Navy
ship should be named.
Table 2. Recent Enacted Legislative Provisions
Fiscal
Year
Public Law
Bill
Section
Ship
Name(s)
2019
P.L. 116-92
S. 1790
1749
Any ship (or other DOD asset)
Prohibition on new names
referring to Confederacy
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
1988
P.L. 100-202 H.J.Res. 395
8138
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
Source: Prepared by CRS. Al of these provisions expressed the sense of the Congress (or of the Senate or
House) about how a Navy ship should be named.
Table 3 shows past examples of proposed bil s 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
for a ship. Although few of these measures were acted on after being referred to committee, they
al signaled congressional interest in how certain ships should be named, and thus may have
influenced Navy decisions on these matters.

Congressional Research Service

38

link to page 43 link to page 43 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Table 3. Examples of Proposed Bills and Amendments
[Congress] and Bill
Ship
Proposed name(s)
[116th] H.Con.Res. 120/S.Con.Res. 41
Next Virginia-class submarine
Wisconsin
[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 Wil iam Finn
[111th] H.Res. 330
an appropriate ship
Clifton B. Cates
[111th] H.Con.Res. 83
CVN-79 or CVN-80
Barry M. Goldwater
[109th] S. 2766
CVN-78
Gerald R. Ford
[107th] H.Con.Res. 294
a new naval vessel
Bluejacket
[106th] S.Con.Res. 84
CVN-77
Lexington
[105th] S.Amdt. 2812 to S. 2057
LPD-17 class ship
Clifton B. Cates
[104th] H.J.Res. 61
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] H.R. 445
CVN-76
Harry Truman
[104th] S.Con.Res. 62
SSN-774
South Dakota
[104th] S.J.Res. 17
CVN-76
Ronald Reagan
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LHD-7
Iwo Jima
[104th] S.Amdt. 2277 to S. 1026
LPD-17 class ships
famous Marine Corps battles or heroes
[104th] S.Amdt. 4350 to S. 1745
a SSN-774 class submarine
South Dakota
[103rd] H.R. 5283
an appropriate ship
Joseph Vittori
[102nd] H.Con.Res. 354
a guided missile cruiser
Pearl Harbor
[102nd] H.R. 6115
CVN-76
Harry S Truman
[100th] H.Amdt. 614 to H.R. 4264
next SSBN-726 class submarine
Melvin Price
[100th] S.Amdt. 1354 to H.J.Res. 395
CVN-74 or CVN-75
John C. Stennis
[98th] H.Res. 99
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.Con.Res. 312
a nonlethal naval vessela
Corpus Christia
[97th] H.Res. 174
an aircraft carrier
Wasp
[97th] H.R. 4977
CVN-72
Hyman G. Rickover
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 386
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.Con.Res. 387
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
[93rd] H.J.Res. 831
CVN-70
Carl Vinson
Source: Prepared by CRS.
a. H.Con.Res. 312 expressed the sense of Congress that the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine
Corpus Christi (SSN-705) should be renamed, and that a nonlethal naval vessel should instead be named
Corpus Christi. (Los Angeles-class attack submarines were named for cities, and SSN-705 had been named for
Corpus Christi, TX.) H.Con.Res. 312 was introduced on April 21, 1982, and was referred to the Seapower
and Strategic and Critical Materials subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on April 28,
1982. On May 10, 1982, the Navy changed the name of SSN-705 to City of Corpus Christi.
Congressional Research Service

39

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Legislative Activity in 2021
FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4350)
House
Section 1085 of the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4350) as reported by the
House Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 117-118 of September 10, 2021) states:
SEC. 1085. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NAMING A WARSHIP THE USS
FALLUJAH.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name a warship the ‘‘USS
Fallujah’’.
H.Rept. 117-118 states:
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
The committee understands the importance of naval history to sailors and their families
like. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships148 is the official reference work on
the basic facts about ships commissioned by the U.S. Navy since October 13, 1775. The
committee is concerned that the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is severely
out of date.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy brief the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2022, on efforts to update the Dictionary of American Naval
Fighting Ships. The briefing will include at a minimum: (1) timeline; (2) scope of project;
and (3) existing and proposed budget needed to update the Dictionary of American Naval
Fighting Ships within five years. (Pages 218-219)

148 T he online version of T he Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) is at
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html .
Congressional Research Service

40

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 fel into disuse, leading to a general lack of knowledge about naming rules. To remedy
this problem, the Naval History and Heritage Command wil once again develop and publish a list
of current type naming rules to help al Americans better understand why Secretaries of the Navy
choose the ship names they do. This list wil be updated as required.149

149 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

41

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Appendix B. Name Change for Ex-U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter Formerly Named Taney
A July 1, 2020, press report about an ex-U.S. Coast Guard cutter that was then named Taney—a
ship that is owned by the City of Baltimore and operated there as a museum ship—states
The historic Coast Guard cutter the “Taney” will be renamed as soon as possible so that it
no longer pays tribute to the antebellum Supreme Court chief justice who delivered the
Dred Scott decision, according to a Baltimore museum in charge of the ship.
The ship is named after Roger B. Taney, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court who
delivered the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that cemented the legality of slavery.
“The time is now to fix these things. We can’t keep living with these symbols of oppression
and blatant racism,” said Chris Rowsom, executive director of Historic Ships in Baltimore,
the organization that controls and maintains the ship. Its name has drawn protests and
objections in the past.…
Historic Ships is working with Baltimore, the Coast Guard and the National Park Service,
which maintains the National Register of Historic Places, to speed removal of the Taney
name and find a suitable new name for the ship. “Taney” has already been removed from
the ship’s stern, and Historic Ships said that until a new name is decided upon, the ship
will be known by its technical name, the WHEC 37.150 Historic Ships said it doesn’t
anticipate any legal roadblocks to changing the name.
“We’d like to consider Thurgood Marshall,” said James Piper Bond, CEO of the Living
Classrooms Foundation, parent group of Historic Ships, referring to the first black Supreme
Court justice and Baltimore native.
Baltimore City Council President Brandon Scott said the city has been talking about
removing the name for years.
“The argument that changing the name would erase history is moot,” he said in a statement.
“Renaming the USCGC Taney is a small, but meaningful step towards an honest and
necessary reckoning with our past.”
Baltimore Mayor Bernard “Jack” Young said in a statement he strongly believes the name
should be changed.
The Taney is the last warship afloat that was at Pearl Harbor during the December 7, 1941,
surprise attack. The Taney was decommissioned on Dec. 7, 1986, and the Coast Guard
transferred ownership and oversight to Historic Ships in Baltimore, according to Coast
Guard spokesman Lt. Cdr. Scott McBride.
“To preserve the proud naval heritage of the ship and honor all who served aboard during
its 50 years of service, the Coast Guard recommends referring to the vessel by its hul
classification symbol of WHEC 37,” he said.
The former Coast Guard cutter now s its docked in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor as a floating
memorial and museum.

150 In the designation WHEC 37, W means it was a Coast Guard vessel, HEC means it was a high -endurance cutter, and
37 means it was the Coast Guard’s 37th such ship.
Congressional Research Service

42

Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress

Historic Ships hasn’t determined if it will remove all Taney references inside the ship and
place artifacts in storage or a museum but said remaining references can be used to bolster
education programs on Mr. Taney’s legacy.151

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 n ot 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.

151 Ben Kesling, “ Historic Coast Guard Ship ‘T aney’ to Be Renamed,” Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2020. See also
Hallie Miller, “ Roger B. T aney’s Name Removed from Historic Pearl Harbor Ship in Baltimore,” Baltimore Sun, July
2, 2020; “ Name of Ex-Supreme Court Justice T aken Off Historic Warship,” Associated Press, July 1, 2020; John
Kruzel, “Custodians Rename Coast Guard Ship Named After Justice Who Wrote Dred Scott Decision,” The Hill, July
1, 2020; Meg Walburn Viviano, “ Name-Dropping: Coast Guard Cutter T aney’s Name Removed,” Chesapeake Bay
Magazine, July 1, 2020; “ Supreme Court Justice’s Name Removed from Retired Coast Guard Cutter,” Maritim e
Executive, July 1, 2020; “ Commitment to Removing National Symbols of Racism and Educating Yout h About Our
Nation’s History Leads Living Classrooms Foundation to Remove Roger B. T aney’s Racist Legacy from Former Coast
Guard Cutter in Baltimore,” Living Classrooms Foundation, July 1, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
RS22478 · VERSION 224 · UPDATED
43