H. R. 5122—68
‘‘(A) A specification of any statutory, regulatory, or oper-
ational impediments to achieving the requirement under sub-
section (a) with respect to each military department. 
‘‘(B) A description of the benchmarks for capital investment 
established for each covered depot and military department 
and the relationship of the benchmarks to applicable perform-
ance measurement methods used in the private sector. 
‘‘(C) If the requirement under subsection (a) is not met 
for a military department for the fiscal year covered by the 
report, a statement of the reasons why the requirement was 
not met and a plan of actions for meeting the requirement 
for the fiscal year beginning in the year in which such report 
is submitted. 
‘‘(e) COVERED DEPOT.—In this section, the term ‘covered depot’ 
means any of the following: 
‘‘(1) With respect to the Department of the Army: 
‘‘(A) Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. 
‘‘(B) Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(C) Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(D) Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas. 
‘‘(E) Red River Army Depot, Texas. 
‘‘(2) With respect to the Department of the Navy: 
‘‘(A) Fleet Readiness Center East Site, Cherry Point, 
North Carolina. 
‘‘(B) Fleet Readiness Center Southwest Site, North 
Island, California. 
‘‘(C) Fleet Readiness Center Southeast Site, Jackson-
ville, Florida. 
‘‘(D) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine. 
‘‘(E) Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Hawaii. 
‘‘(F) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Washington. 
‘‘(G) Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia. 
‘‘(H) Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. 
‘‘(I) Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California. 
‘‘(3) With respect to the Department of the Air Force: 
‘‘(A) Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center, Georgia. 
‘‘(B) Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah. 
‘‘(C) Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Oklahoma.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the begin-
ning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following 
new item:
‘‘2476. Minimum capital investment for certain depots.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 2476 of title 10, United States 
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on October 
1, 2006. 
(d) TWO YEAR PHASE-IN FOR DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND 
THE NAVY.—
(1) REDUCED PERCENTAGE OF REQUIRED INVESTMENT FOR 
FISCAL YEARS 2007 AND 2008.—The Secretary of the Army shall 
apply subsection (a) of section 2476 of title 10, United States 
Code, as added by subsection (a), to the covered depots of 
the Army, and the Secretary of the Navy shall apply such 
subsection to the covered depots of the Department of the 
Navy—
(A) for fiscal year 2007, by substituting ‘‘four percent’’ 
for ‘‘six percent’’; and
H. R. 5122—69
(B) for fiscal year 2008, by substituting ‘‘five percent’’ 
for ‘‘six percent’’. 
(2) COVERED DEPOTS.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘covered 
depot’’ has the meaning given that term in subsection (e) of 
section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, as added by sub-
section (a). 
SEC. 333. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR CONTRACTOR 
PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY GUARD FUNCTIONS. 
(a) EXTENSION AND LIMITATION ON TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTRAC-
TORS.—Section 332(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2007’’ both places it appears 
and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2009’’; 
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and 
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new sub-
section (d): 
‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—The total number of personnel employed to 
perform security guard functions under all contracts entered into 
pursuant to this section shall not exceed—
‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2007, the total number of such personnel 
employed under such contracts on October 1, 2006; 
‘‘(2) for fiscal year 2008, the number equal to 90 percent 
of the total number of such personnel employed under such 
contracts on October 1, 2006; and 
‘‘(3) for fiscal year 2009, the number equal to 80 percent 
of the total number of such personnel employed under such 
contracts on October 1, 2006.’’. 
(b) REPORT ON CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY-GUARD 
FUNCTIONS.—Not later than February 1, 2007, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives a report on contractor performance of security 
guard functions under section 332 of the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–
314). The report shall include the following: 
(1) An explanation of progress made toward implementing 
each of the seven recommendations in the Comptroller General 
report entitled ‘‘Contract Security Guards: Army’s Guard Pro-
gram Requires Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisi-
tion Approach’’ (GAO–06–284). 
(2) An assessment, taking into consideration the observa-
tions made by the Comptroller General on the report of the 
Department of Defense of November 2005 that is entitled 
‘‘Department of Defense Installation Security Guard Require-
ment Assessment and Plan’’, of the following: 
(A) The cost-effectiveness of using contractors rather 
than Department of Defense employees to perform security-
guard functions. 
(B) The performance of contractors employed as secu-
rity guards compared with the performance of military 
personnel who have served as security guards. 
(C) Specific results of on-site visits made by officials 
designated by the Secretary of Defense to military installa-
tions using contractors to perform security-guard functions. 
(c) CONTRACT LIMITATION.—No contract may be entered into 
under section 332 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
H. R. 5122—70
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) after September 
30, 2007, until the report required under subsection (b) is submitted. 
Subtitle E—Reports 
SEC. 341. REPORT ON NAVY FLEET RESPONSE PLAN. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than December 1, 2006, the 
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of 
the House of Representatives a report on the program of the Navy 
referred to as the Fleet Response Plan. The report shall include 
the following: 
(1) A directive that provides guidance for the conduct of 
the Plan and standardizes terms and definitions. 
(2) Performance measures for evaluation of the Plan. 
(3) Costs and resources needed to achieve objectives of 
the Plan, including any incremental effect on the Navy Oper-
ation and Maintenance budget. 
(4) Operational tests, exercises, war games, experiments, 
and deployments used to test performance. 
(5) A collection and synthesis of lessons learned from the 
implementation of the Plan as of the date on which the report 
is submitted. 
(6) Evaluation of each of the following with respect to 
each ship participating in the Plan: 
(A) Combat readiness, including training requirements. 
(B) Ship material condition, including trending data 
for mission degrading casualty reports rated as C3 or C4. 
(C) Professional development training requirements 
accomplished during a deployment and at home station. 
(D) Crew retention statistics. 
(7) Any proposed changes to the Surface Force Training 
Manual. 
(8) The amount of funding required to effectively implement 
the operation and maintenance requirements of the Plan by 
ship class. 
(9) Any recommendations of the Secretary of the Navy 
with respect to expanding the Plan to include Expeditionary 
Strike Groups. 
(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later than 120 days 
after the date on which the Secretary of the Navy submits the 
report required under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing 
a review of the report required under that subsection. The Comp-
troller General’s report shall include the following: 
(1) An examination of the management approaches of the 
Navy in implementing the Fleet Response Plan. 
(2) An assessment of the adequacy of Navy directives and 
guidance with respect to maintenance and training require-
ments and procedures. 
(3) An analysis and assessment of the adequacy of the 
Navy’s evaluation criteria for the Plan. 
(4) An evaluation of Navy data on aircraft carriers, 
destroyers, and cruisers that participated in the Plan with 
respect to readiness, response time, and availability for routine 
or unforeseen deployments.
H. R. 5122—71
(5) An assessment of the Navy’s progress in identifying 
the amount of funding required to effectively implement the 
operations and maintenance requirements of the Plan and the 
effect of providing funding in an amount less than that amount. 
(6) Any recommendations of the Comptroller General with 
respect to expanding the Plan to include Expeditionary Strike 
Groups. 
(c) POSTPONEMENT OF EXPANSION.—The Secretary of the Navy 
may not expand the implementation of the Fleet Response Plan 
beyond the Carrier Strike Groups until the date that is six months 
after the date on which the Secretary of the Navy submits the 
report required under subsection (a). 
SEC. 342. REPORT ON NAVY SURFACE SHIP ROTATIONAL CREW PRO-
GRAMS. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than April 1, 2007, the Sec-
retary of the Navy shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House 
of Representatives a report on the ship rotational crew experiment 
referred to in subsection (c)(1). The report shall include the fol-
lowing: 
(1) A comparison between the three destroyers participating 
in that experiment and destroyers not participating in the 
experiment that takes into consideration each of the following: 
(A) Cost-effectiveness, including a comparison of travel 
and per diem expenses, maintenance costs, and other costs. 
(B) Maintenance procedures, impacts, and deficiencies, 
including the number and characterization of maintenance 
deficiencies, the extent of voyage repairs, post-deployment 
assessments of the material condition of the ships, and 
the extent to which work levels were maintained. 
(C) Mission training requirements. 
(D) 
Professional 
development 
requirements 
and 
opportunities. 
(E) Liberty port of call opportunities. 
(F) Movement and transportation of crew. 
(G) Inventory and property accountability. 
(H) Policies and procedures for assigning billets for 
rotating crews. 
(I) Crew retention statistics. 
(J) Readiness and mission capability data. 
(2) Results from surveys administered or focus groups held 
to obtain representative views from commanding officers, offi-
cers, and enlisted members on the effects of rotational crew 
experiments on quality of life, training, professional develop-
ment, maintenance, mission effectiveness, and other issues. 
(3) The extent to which standard policies and procedures 
were developed and used for participating ships. 
(4) Lessons learned from the experiment. 
(5) An assessment from the combatant commanders on 
the crew mission performance when deployed. 
(6) An assessment from the commander of the Fleet Forces 
Command on the material condition, maintenance, and crew 
training of each participating ship.