Lawmakers want review of ship-naming policy - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Lawmakers want review of ship-naming policy

Congress has called for a review of how the Navy names its ships following three recent ship-naming announcements that have roiled conservatives.

A clause in the Dec. 12 congressional report accompanying the defense authorization bill calls on the defense secretary to review the policy for naming vessels, which has been a centuries-old prerogative of the Navy secretary.

For critics, Exhibit A is the Cesar Chavez, a dry cargo and ammunition ship under construction that is named for the late labor leader.

“The Obama administration seems to be politicizing the ship-naming process,” said Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter has been an outspoken critic of the Chavez decision.

Proponents counter that the name is appropriate because Chavez, who organized farm workers into a 50,000-strong union, served in the Navy and that the Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships are named after pioneers. Examples include astronaut Alan Shepard, explorer Robert Peary, physician Charles Drew and Sacagawea, a Native American who guided Meriwether Lewis and William Clark in their 1804-06 expedition.

The clause, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., calls for a sweeping review of the Navy’s vessel-naming practices, including whether it conforms with historical standards.

The clause calls for a description of current naming conventions and whether it is feasible for the Navy to establish fixed naming policies for a class of ships. A report is to be provided to Congress within six months of the authorization bill passing.

A spokeswoman for Navy Secretary Ray Mabus defended the recent ship names.

“While there have always been exceptions to naming conventions for ship classes, generally speaking, names are chosen to honor individuals who have displayed uncommon commitment, service or courage, or to recognize geographic locations or traits that represent American values,” said Capt. Pamela Kunze, a spokeswoman for Mabus.

The 200-year-old practice, she said, “allows the secretary of the Navy to consider ship-naming nominations he receives through a variety of sources, including the American public, members of Congress, industry and the chain of command.”

In the defense authorization bill, Congress also called for the Navy to name the “next available” ship after Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for shielding fellow Marines from a grenade with his body during the Battle of Fallujah in 2004.

‘Politicized the process’

Some critics are going much further than Blunt.

In a Dec. 8 editorial titled “The USS Karl Marx,” The Washington Times took issue with not only Chavez but the Navy’s choice to name the previous ship in the class for civil rights leader Medgar Evers and the decision to name the 10th San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship after the late Rep. John P. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran and retired Marine colonel. All the other ships in the San Antonio class are named for cities or counties.

The Murtha announcement was especially controversial because the congressman accused Marines of killing Iraqis “in cold blood” in 2005 after the Hadithah shootings came to light. The vessel to be named Murtha is an amphibious ship, meaning it will carry Marines.

“The responsibility for naming U.S. warships has traditionally been left to the secretary of the Navy,” the editorial said. “That needs to change. President Obama’s Navy secretary, Ray Mabus, has politicized the process to the point where some form of oversight is needed.”

In the exalted realm of ship naming, exceptions abound. Virginia-class attack submarines are named for states, except for the sub named after former senator John Warner. Aircraft carriers are named for presidents, except for the Enterprise, along with the three named for a congressman, senator and fleet admiral.

Controversy and political maneuvering are nothing new to ship naming, according to one former Navy official.

“It has been politicized since 1776,” said A.D. Baker III, who submitted name recommendations while working for Navy Secretary John Lehman in the 1980s. “It has always been politicized. The only time it wasn’t politicized was during World War II, when they had to name so many ships, so quickly.”

One of the controversies in the 1980s arose when the Navy planned to name a Los Angeles-class attack sub USS Corpus Christi. That was derailed once Catholic bishops wrote a letter criticizing the Navy for the proposal to name a warship after the body of Christ. The name was changed to USS City of Corpus Christi.

Congress can make recommendations and forward requests. It can even pass legislation asking the Navy to name the next feasible vessel after someone, as it did long ago for Gen. Robert Cushman, a former Marine Corps commandant, Baker said.

“Well, that was 16 years ago, and they still haven’t gotten around to it,” he said.

“In other words,” Baker continued, “the Navy kind of wavers a little bit — or the secretary does — if there’s something particularly useful that can be gained politically from picking a name.”