Summary#
The NAMES Act is a proposed new law; it does not amend an existing law. It would require the Secretary of the Navy to set out a process for naming and renaming Navy vessels. Its stated goal is not given beyond requiring that process.
- The Secretary must publish objective criteria for naming and renaming vessels.
- Before a vessel is named or renamed, the Secretary must obtain a written historical assessment from the Naval History and Heritage Command.
- The Secretary must give a written reason for the selected name and explain any departure from that Command’s primary recommendation.
- When renaming a vessel, the Secretary must explain the historical significance of its existing name and why it is being removed.
- The Secretary must provide required written determinations to congressional defense committees and make them public, subject to applicable law.
What it means for you#
- Secretary of the Navy: Would have to establish and publish the criteria and provide the required written explanations.
- Naval History and Heritage Command: Would have to provide a written historical assessment before each naming or renaming. The Secretary would not have to follow its primary recommendation, but would have to explain a departure from it.
- Congress and the public: Congressional defense committees would receive the required written determinations, and the public would be able to access them subject to applicable law.
- People affected by vessel names: The bill does not itself select names, require any vessel to be renamed, or ban particular names.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill would require staff work to set criteria, obtain assessments, prepare written explanations, and provide and publish records. It gives no cost estimate or staffing figure.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define what counts as “objective” criteria or say what those criteria must include.
- It does not specify how the Naval History and Heritage Command chooses its primary recommendation.
- It does not set deadlines, a review or appeal process, or rules for public input.
- The available material does not establish what Navy naming rules exist now, so the change from current practice cannot be verified.
- The bill does not specify when it would take effect. It has been introduced and referred to committee, so it is not law; passage is uncertain.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that published criteria could make naming decisions more consistent and easier to understand.
- Written historical assessments and explanations could give Congress and the public a record of the reasons behind a name.
- Requiring an explanation when the Secretary departs from the Navy history office’s recommendation could make that decision more accountable without making the recommendation binding.
Case against#
- The bill does not define “objective” criteria or set limits on the Secretary’s choice, so the process may still leave wide discretion.
- The bill requires written records but does not set deadlines, public-input rules, or a way to challenge a decision.
- The required assessments and explanations would take staff time, but the bill gives no estimate of that work’s cost.