The USS Frank E. Evans Act directs the Secretary of Defense to authorize the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall (in Washington, D.C.) of the 74 crew members of USS Frank E.
Evans who were killed on June 3, 1969, and requires that authorization within one year of enactment. The Secretary must consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF), and other applicable authorities to resolve any nomenclature or placement issues caused by limited wall space.
The bill explicitly removes Chapter 89 of Title 40 (the Commemorative Works Act) from applying to activities carried out to add these names. That carve-out short-circuits some of the statutory review and siting protections that normally govern changes to federally managed commemorative sites, raising implementation and precedent questions for agencies, advocacy groups, and families of other servicemembers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to authorize, within one year, the placement of the 74 names of USS Frank E. Evans crew members killed June 3, 1969, on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It mandates consultation with Interior, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, and other relevant authorities to address how and where the names will be added when space is limited, and it declares the Commemorative Works Act inapplicable to these activities.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior (which oversees the National Park Service and the Memorial), the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the families and descendants of the 74 crew members, and the managers/operators of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. It also has downstream relevance for advocacy groups and other families seeking retroactive additions.
Why It Matters
The bill remedies a specific historical omission but does so by bypassing statutory review under the Commemorative Works Act, creating an administrative pathway for name additions that could be used or cited in future requests. It imposes a short timeline and leaves funding and detailed placement mechanics to federal agencies and stakeholders.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill instructs the Secretary of Defense to authorize the addition of the names of 74 crew members of the USS Frank E. Evans—lost on June 3, 1969—to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C., and sets a one-year deadline for that authorization.
The text does not say the precise process the Secretary must use, but it requires the Secretary to consult with Interior, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, and any other applicable authorities about nomenclature and placement, specifically to address space limitations on the Wall.
The bill’s consultation requirement frames the operational problem: the Wall is physically finite, and adding 74 names may require decisions about where on the panels to place names, whether to alter existing panel sequencing, or whether to use supplemental plaques or nearby markers. Those are to be worked out between Defense, Interior/National Park Service, and the VVMF rather than imposed by the bill’s text.
The statute is silent on who will physically perform the engraving or on logistical details such as how to minimize disruption to the memorial or ceremonies.Importantly, the bill removes the Commemorative Works Act’s applicability for these activities. That statute ordinarily governs the siting and approval process for new commemorative works on federal land and imposes oversight to manage competing memorial requests and site impacts.
By exempting this action, the bill narrows legal barriers and timelines for adding the names but also strips away processes that would usually require public notice, review, and certain agency sign-offs.The bill also omits an appropriation and does not allocate funds for the work. That means agencies will need to absorb costs or seek separate funding: the Department of Defense will have to authorize the change; the Department of the Interior (through the National Park Service) and the VVMF will likely carry out or coordinate the physical and curatorial work; and any short-term operational expenses (engraving, panel adjustments, visitor communications) will need resolution within existing budgets or through new appropriations or donations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill mandates that the Secretary of Defense authorize inclusion of the 74 USS Frank E. Evans crew members’ names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall within one year of enactment.
The names to be added are specifically those of the 74 crew members killed on June 3, 1969, addressing a distinct historical omission.
The Secretary must consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, and other applicable authorities about nomenclature and placement to address space limitations on the Wall.
Chapter 89 of Title 40, United States Code (the Commemorative Works Act), is explicitly declared not to apply to activities carried out under this bill.
The bill contains no appropriation or funding direction; it leaves the cost, engraving logistics, and implementation responsibilities to the involved agencies and organizations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the 'USS Frank E. Evans Act.' This is a standard drafting provision that has no operational effect but sets the bill’s name for citation and administrative reference.
Mandatory authorization to add names
Requires the Secretary of Defense to authorize the placement on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall of the 74 crew members of USS Frank E. Evans who were killed on June 3, 1969. The provision imposes a one-year deadline for that authorization, creating an enforceable timeline for action but not specifying the administrative steps the Secretary must take to implement the addition.
Required consultation on nomenclature and placement
Directs the Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, and other applicable authorities about adjustments to the nomenclature and placement of names to address space limitations. Practically, this pushes operational decisions—panel placement, sequence, display format, and potentially temporary measures—to agency and stakeholder coordination rather than prescribing a statutory solution.
Commemorative Works Act exemption
States that Chapter 89 of Title 40 (the Commemorative Works Act) does not apply to activities under subsections (a) or (b). This removes statutory procedural requirements that would normally govern siting or approval processes for changes to commemorative installations on federal land, allowing the agencies to proceed without the CWA’s public review and siting constraints.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Families and descendants of the 74 crew members — the bill provides formal, public recognition on a national memorial, which can deliver closure and an official correction to the historical record.
- Survivors and veterans associated with USS Frank E. Evans — inclusion affirms institutional acknowledgment of their loss and service.
- Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) — the Fund’s mission to preserve and complete the Memorial is furthered; its role in consultation reinforces its curatorial and operational influence over the Wall.
- Historians, researchers, and the visiting public — the Wall’s record becomes more complete, improving historical accuracy and public commemoration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Defense — must authorize the change and participate in consultations; may need to absorb administrative costs or secure funds for implementation.
- Department of the Interior / National Park Service — will bear practical responsibilities for site alterations, maintenance, and integration of the new names at the Memorial site, likely requiring staff time and resources.
- Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund — expected to participate in consultation and may shoulder fundraising, design, or execution roles depending on agency decisions, which can impose operational costs.
- Other veterans groups and applicants for memorial modifications — the CWA exemption may set a precedent that increases demands on agency time as other parties seek similar legislative fixes rather than going through existing review processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between a focused obligation to honor and correct a historical omission for 74 servicemembers and the principles of process, equity, and site integrity embodied in the Commemorative Works Act: the bill advances a moral and symbolic priority quickly but does so at the cost of bypassing statutory review mechanisms that protect federal memorials from ad hoc changes and help manage competing claims.
The bill solves a discrete moral and historical issue—adding the names of 74 sailors—but leaves several practical and legal questions open. It requires authorization and consultation but does not define the technical standard for placement or nomenclature (for example, whether names must follow existing chronological sequencing, how to handle panel continuity, or whether supplemental plaques are permissible).
Those decisions will determine whether the addition preserves the Wall’s curatorial logic or introduces inconsistencies that affect visitor experience and historical interpretation.
Exempting the Commemorative Works Act accelerates the administrative path but removes procedural safeguards such as public notice, interagency siting review, and constraints designed to manage competing claims for federal memorial space. That carve-out reduces legal friction for this specific action but raises the prospect that Congress could be asked to resolve other omissions by legislative carve-outs rather than by established processes.
Finally, the lack of an appropriation creates an implementation gap: without designated funding, agencies and the VVMF must absorb costs or seek separate funding, which could delay physical work despite the one-year authorization deadline.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.