(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 2319 of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ‘‘or ship 
critical safety item’’ after ‘‘aviation critical safety 
item’’; and 
(2) In subsection (g)—
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as 
paragraph (3); 
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 
following new paragraph (2): 
‘‘(2) The term ‘ship critical safety item’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 7317(c) of this 
title.’’; and 
(C) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated)—
(i) by inserting ‘‘or a ship critical 
safety item’’ after ‘‘aviation critical safety 
item’’ the first place it appears; and 
(ii) by inserting ‘‘, or the seaworthi-
ness of a ship system or equipment,’’ after 
‘‘equipment’’. 
SEC. 127. DD(X) NEXT-GENERATION DESTROYER PROGRAM. 
(a) FUNDING AUTHORIZED.—Of the amount author-
ized to be appropriated by section 102(a)(3) for fiscal year 
2007 
for 
Shipbuilding 
and 
Conversion, 
Navy,
$2,568,000,000 is available for the DD(X) Next-Genera-
tion Destroyer program. 
(b) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the 
Navy may enter into two contracts during fiscal year 2007 
for the DD(X) Next-Generation Destroyer program. The 
contracts shall be entered into with two different ship-
builders. One such contract shall provide for procurement 
of a DD(X) Next-Generation destroyer, including detail 
design and construction. The other contract shall provide 
only for detail design of a DD(X) Next-Generation de-
stroyer. The two contracts shall be awarded simulta-
neously. 
SEC. 128. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE NAVY MAKE 
GREATER USE OF NUCLEAR-POWERED PRO-
PULSION SYSTEMS IN ITS FUTURE FLEET OF 
SURFACE COMBATANTS. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings: 
(1) Securing and maintaining access to afford-
able and plentiful sources of energy is a vital na-
tional security interest for the United States.
(2) The Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil is 
a threat to national security due to the inherently 
volatile nature of the global oil market and the polit-
ical instability of some of the world’s largest oil pro-
ducing states. 
(3) Given the recent increase in the cost of 
crude oil, which cannot realistically be expected to 
improve over the long term, other energy sources 
must be seriously considered. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—In light of the findings 
in subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that the Navy 
should make greater use of alternative technologies, in-
cluding nuclear power, as a means of vessel propulsion for 
its future fleet of surface combatants.
Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 
SEC. 131. REQUIREMENT FOR B–52 FORCE STRUCTURE. 
(a) REQUIREMENT.—Before the date specified in 
subsection (b), the Secretary of the Air Force—
(1) may not retire any B–52 aircraft, other 
than the aircraft with tail number 61–0025; and 
(2) shall maintain not less than 44 such air-
craft as combat-coded aircraft. 
(b) TERMINATION.—For purposes of subsection (a), 
the date specified in this subsection is the earlier of—
(1) January 1, 2018; and 
(2) the date as of which a long-range strike re-
placement aircraft with equal or greater capability
than the B–52H model aircraft has attained initial 
operational capability status. 
SEC. 132. STRATEGIC AIRLIFT FORCE STRUCTURE. 
(a) REQUIRED FORCE STRUCTURE.—
(1) MINIMUM NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT.—Effec-
tive October 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force 
shall maintain a total aircraft inventory of strategic 
airlift aircraft of not less than 299 aircraft. 
(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-
section: 
(A) The term ‘‘strategic airlift aircraft’’ 
means an aircraft that has a cargo capacity of 
at least 150,000 pounds and that is capable of 
transporting outsized cargo an unrefueled range 
of at least 2,400 nautical miles. 
(B) The term ‘‘outsized cargo’’ means any 
single item of equipment that exceeds 1,090 
inches in length, 117 inches in width, or 105 
inches in height. 
(b) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF C–
5 AIRCRAFT.—Section 132 of the National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–
136; 117 Stat. 1411) is repealed.
SEC. 133. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF U–2 AIRCRAFT. 
(a) FISCAL YEAR 2007.—The Secretary of the Air 
Force may not retire any U–2 aircraft of the Air Force 
in fiscal year 2007. 
(b) YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2007.—After fiscal 
year 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force may retire a 
U–2 aircraft only if the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
Congress that the U–2 intelligence, surveillance, and re-
connaissance (ISR) capability provided by the U–2 air-
craft no longer contributes to mitigating any gaps in ISR 
capabilities identified in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review. No action may be taken by the Department of 
Defense to retire (or to prepare to retire) any U–2 air-
craft—
(1) before such a certification is submitted to 
Congress; or 
(2) during the 60-day period beginning on the 
date on which such a certification is submitted. 
SEC. 134. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F–
22A RAPTOR FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. 
(a) MULTIYEAR AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the 
Air Force may enter into a multiyear contract for the pro-
curement of up to 60 F–22A Raptor fighter aircraft begin-
ning with the 2007 program year, 
(b) COMPLIANCE
WITH
LAW
APPLICABLE
TO 
MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.—A contract under subsection
(a) for the procurement of F–22A aircraft shall be entered 
into in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United 
States Code, except that, notwithstanding subsection (k) 
of that section, such a contract may not be for a period 
in excess of three program years. 
(c) REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS.—In the case of a 
contract under subsection (a) for the procurement of F–
22A aircraft, a certification under subsection (i)(1)(A) of 
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, with respect 
to that contract may only be submitted if the certification 
includes an additional certification that each of the condi-
tions specified in subsection (a) of that section has been 
satisfied with respect to that contract. 
(d) NOTICE-AND-WAIT REQUIREMENT.—Upon sub-
mission to Congress of a certification referred to in sub-
section (c) with respect to a proposed contract under sub-
section (a) for the procurement of F–22A aircraft, the 
contract may then be entered into only after a period of 
30 days has elapsed after the date of the submission of 
the certification. 
SEC. 135. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF KC–135E AIR-
CRAFT DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007. 
(a) LIMITATION.—The number of KC–135E aircraft 
retired by the Secretary of the Air Force during fiscal year 
2007 may not exceed 29.
(b) TREATMENT OF RETIRED AIRCRAFT.—The Sec-
retary of the Air Force shall maintain each KC–135E air-
craft that is retired by the Secretary after September 30, 
2006, in a condition that would allow recall of that aircraft 
to future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air National 
Guard, or active forces aerial refueling force structure. 
SEC. 136. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF F–117A AIR-
CRAFT DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007. 
(a) LIMITATION.—The number of F–117A aircraft 
retired by the Secretary of the Air Force during fiscal year 
2007 may not exceed 10. 
(b) TREATMENT OF RETIRED AIRCRAFT.—The Sec-
retary of the Air Force shall maintain each F–117A air-
craft that is retired by the Secretary after September 30, 
2006, in a condition that would allow recall of that aircraft 
to future service. 
SEC. 137. AIR FORCE PROGRAM. 
(a) SCIENCE ENGINEERING LAB DATA INTEGRA-
TION.—The amount provided in section 103 for Other 
Procurement, 
Air 
Force, 
is 
hereby 
increased 
by 
$6,000,000, to be available for Science Engineering Lab 
Data Integration (SELDI) at the Ogden Air Logistics 
Center, Utah. 
(b) OFFSET.—The amount provided in section 
201(4) for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by $6,000,000, to be de-
rived from Information and Communications Technology 
(Program Element 0602301E). 
TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOP-
MENT, TEST, AND EVALUA-
TION
Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations. 
Sec. 202. Amount for defense science and technology. 
Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations 
Sec. 211. Alternate engine for Joint Strike Fighter. 
Sec. 212. Extension of authority to award prizes for advanced technology 
achievements. 
Sec. 213. Extension of Defense Acquisition Challenge Program. 
Sec. 214. Future Combat Systems milestone review. 
Sec. 215. Independent cost analyses for Joint Strike Fighter engine program. 
Sec. 216. Dedicated amounts for implementing or evaluating DD(X) and CVN–
21 proposals under Defense Acquisition Challenge Program. 
Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense 
Sec. 221. Fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities. 
Sec. 222. Limitation on use of funds for space-based interceptor. 
Sec. 223. High altitude air ship program. 
Subtitle D—Other Matters 
Sec. 231. Review of test and evaluation policies and practices to address emerg-
ing acquisition approaches.
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2007 for the use of the Department of Defense 
for research, development, test, and evaluation as follows: 
(1) For the Army, $10,932,209,000. 
(2) For the Navy, $17,377,769,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $24,810,041,000. 
(4) 
For 
Defense-wide 
activities, 
$20,944,559,000, of which $181,520,000 is author-
ized for the Director of Operational Test and Eval-
uation. 
SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGY. 
(a) FISCAL YEAR 2007.—Of the amounts authorized 
to be appropriated by section 201, $11,735,555,000 shall 
be available for the Defense Science and Technology Pro-
gram, including basic research, applied research, and ad-
vanced technology development projects. 
(b) BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED RESEARCH, AND AD-
VANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DEFINED.—For 
purposes of this section, the term ‘‘basic research, applied 
research, and advanced technology development’’ means 
work funded in program elements for defense research and 
development under Department of Defense category 6.1, 
6.2, or 6.3.
Subtitle 
B—Program 
Require-
ments, Restrictions, and Limita-
tions 
SEC. 211. ALTERNATE ENGINE FOR JOINT STRIKE FIGHT-
ER. 
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the 
Departments of the Navy and Air Force for the system 
development and demonstration program for the Joint 
Strike Fighter, not less than $408,000,000 shall be obli-
gated for continued development of an alternate engine for 
the Joint Strike Fighter. 
SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO AWARD PRIZES 
FOR 
ADVANCED 
TECHNOLOGY 
ACHIEVE-
MENTS. 
Section 2374a(f) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2007’’ and inserting 
‘‘September 30, 2010’’. 
SEC. 213. EXTENSION OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHAL-
LENGE PROGRAM. 
(a) EXTENSION.—Section 2359b of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (j). 
(b) CONFIDENTIALITY.—Such section is further 
amended in subsection (g)—
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
‘‘CONFLICTS
OF
INTEREST
AND
CONFIDENTIAL-
ITY.—’’; and 
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ‘‘and that the identity of any person or ac-
tivity submitting a challenge proposal is not dis-
closed outside the Federal Government without the 
consent of the person or activity’’. 
SEC. 214. FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS MILESTONE REVIEW. 
(a) MILESTONE REVIEW REQUIRED.—After the pre-
liminary design review of the Future Combat Systems pro-
gram, but in no event later than the end of fiscal year 
2008, the Secretary of Defense shall carry out a Defense 
Acquisition Board milestone review of the Future Combat 
Systems program. The milestone review shall include an 
assessment as to each of the following: 
(1) Whether the warfighter’s needs are valid 
and can be best met with the concept of the pro-
gram. 
(2) Whether the concept of the program can be 
developed and produced within existing resources. 
(3) Whether the program should continue. 
(b) DETERMINATIONS TO BE MADE IN ASSESSING 
WHETHER PROGRAM SHOULD CONTINUE.—In making 
the assessment required by subsection (a)(3), the Sec-
retary shall make a determination with respect to each of 
the following: 
(1) Whether each critical technology for the 
program is at least Technical Readiness Level 6. 
(2) For each system and network component of 
the program, what the key design and technology 
risks are, based on System Functional Reviews, Pre-
liminary Design Reviews, and Technical Readiness 
Levels. 
(3) Whether actual demonstrations, rather than 
simulations, have shown that the concept of the pro-
gram will work. 
(4) Whether actual demonstrations, rather than 
plans, have shown that the software for the program 
is functional. 
(5) What the cost estimate for the program is. 
(6) What the affordability assessment for the 
program is, based on that cost estimate. 
(c) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the con-
gressional defense committees a report on the findings and 
conclusions of the milestone review required by subsection 
(a). The report shall include, and display, each of the as-
sessments required by subsection (a) and each of the de-
terminations required by subsection (b).
(d) RESTRICTION
ON FUNDS EFFECTIVE FISCAL 
2009.—For fiscal years beginning with 2009, the Sec-
retary may not obligate any funds for the Future Combat 
Systems program until after the report required by sub-
section (c) is submitted. 
SEC. 215. INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSES FOR JOINT 
STRIKE FIGHTER ENGINE PROGRAM. 
(a) INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSES.—A comprehen-
sive and detailed cost analysis of the Joint Strike Fighter 
engine program shall be independently performed by the 
Comptroller General and by the Secretary of Defense, act-
ing through the Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. The cost analysis shall 
cover—
(1) an alternative under which the aircraft are 
capable of using the F135 engine only; 
(2) an alternative under which the aircraft are 
capable of using either the F135 engine or the F136 
engine, and is carried out on a competitive basis; 
and 
(3) any other alternative, whether competitive 
or sole source, that would reduce total life-cycle cost, 
improve program schedule, or both. 
(b) REPORTS.—Not later than March 15, 2007, each 
official specified in subsection (a) shall independently sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
the cost analysis carried out by that official under sub-
section (a). Each report shall include each of the following 
matters: 
(1) The key assumptions used in carrying out 
the cost analysis. 
(2) The methodology and techniques used in 
carrying out the cost analysis. 
(3) For each alternative under subsection (a)—
(A) a comparison of the life-cycle costs, in-
cluding costs in current and constant collars 
and a net-present-value analysis; and 
(B) estimates of—
(i) supply, maintenance, and other op-
erations manpower required to support the 
alternative; 
(ii) the number of flight hours re-
quired to achieve engine maturity and in 
what year that is expected to be achieved; 
and 
(iii) the total number of engines ex-
pected to be procured over the lifetime of 
the Joint Strike Fighter program. 
(4) The acquisition strategies that were used 
for, and the experience with respect to cost, sched-
ule, and performance under past acquisition pro-
grams for engines for tactical fighter aircraft, in-
cluding the F–15, F–16, F–18, and F–22. 
(5) A comparison of the experiences under past 
engine acquisition programs carried out on a sole-
source basis, and those carried out on a competitive 
basis, with respect to performance, savings, main-
tainability, reliability, and technical innovation. 
(6) Conclusions and recommendations. 
(c) CERTIFICATION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—
In submitting the report required by subsection (b), the 
Comptroller General shall also submit a certification as 
to whether the Comptroller General had access to suffi-
cient information to enable the Comptroller General to 
make informed judgments on the matters required to be 
included in the report. 
(d) LIFE-CYCLE COSTS DEFINED.—In this section, 
the term ‘‘life-cycle costs’’ includes those elements of cost 
that would be considered for a life-cycle cost analysis for 
a major defense acquisition program, such as procurement 
of engines, procurement of spare engines, and procure-
ment of engine components and parts, and also includes 
good-faith estimates of routine engine costs, such as per-
formance upgrades and component improvement, that his-
torically have occurred in tactical fighter engine programs.
SEC. 216. DEDICATED AMOUNTS FOR IMPLEMENTING OR 
EVALUATING DD(X) AND CVN–21 PROPOSALS 
UNDER DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHALLENGE 
PROGRAM. 
(a) AMOUNTS REQUIRED.—Of the amounts appro-
priated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in 
section 201(4) for research, development, test, and evalua-
tion, Defense-wide, $4,000,000 shall be available only to 
implement or evaluate challenge proposals specified in 
subsection (b). 
(b) CHALLENGE PROPOSALS COVERED.—A challenge 
proposal referred to in subsection (a) is a proposal under 
the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program established by 
section 2359b of title 10, United States Code, that relates 
to—
(1) the DD(X) next-generation destroyer pro-
gram; or 
(2) the CVN–21 next-generation aircraft carrier 
program. 
Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile 
Defense 
SEC. 221. FIELDING OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE CAPA-
BILITIES. 
Upon approval by the Secretary of Defense, funds au-
thorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 
for research, development, test, and evaluation for the
Missile Defense Agency may be used for the development 
and fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities. 
SEC. 222. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SPACE-
BASED INTERCEPTOR. 
(a) LIMITATION.—No funds appropriated or other 
wise made available to the Department of Defense may 
be obligated or expended for the testing or deployment of 
a space-based interceptor until 90 days after the date on 
which a report described in subsection (c) is submitted. 
(b) SPACE-BASED
INTERCEPTOR
DEFINED.—For 
purposes of this section, the term ‘‘space-based inter-
ceptor’’ means a kinetic or directed energy weapon that 
is stationed on a satellite or orbiting platform and that 
is intended to destroy another satellite in orbit or a bal-
listic missile launched from earth. 
(c) REPORT.—A report described in this subsection 
is a report prepared by the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency and submitted to the congressional defense com-
mittees containing the following: 
(1) A description of the essential components of 
a proposed space-based interceptor system, including 
a description of how the system proposed would en-
hance or complement other missile defense systems. 
(2) An estimate of the acquisition and life-cycle 
cost of the system described under paragraph (1),
including lift cost and periodic replacement cost due 
to depreciation and attrition. 
(3) An analysis of the vulnerability of such a 
system to counter-measures, including direct ascent 
and co-orbital interceptors, and an analysis of the 
functionality of such a system in the aftermath of a 
nuclear detonation in space. 
(4) A projection of the foreign policy and na-
tional security implications of a space-based inter-
ceptor program, including the probable response of 
United States adversaries and United States allies. 
SEC. 223. HIGH ALTITUDE AIR SHIP PROGRAM. 
Within the amount provided in section 201 for Re-
search, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force—
(1) $5,000,000 is available for the High Alti-
tude Air Ship Program; and 
(2) the amount provided for the Space Based 
Space 
Surveillance 
System 
is 
reduced 
by 
$5,000,000. 
Subtitle D—Other Matters 
SEC. 231. REVIEW OF TEST AND EVALUATION POLICIES 
AND PRACTICES TO ADDRESS EMERGING AC-
QUISITION APPROACHES. 
(a) REVISION TO REPORT REQUIREMENT.—Section 
2399(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ‘‘tested are effective and suitable for combat’’ 
and inserting the following: ‘‘tested—
‘‘(i) are effective and suitable for combat 
in accordance with the users’ standards for ef-
fectiveness and suitability as reflected in the re-
quirements process; or 
‘‘(ii) are operationally acceptable under 
certain restricted conditions, as delineated by 
the Director.’’. 
(b) REVIEW OF TEST AND EVALUATION POLICIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary of De-
fense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in 
coordination with the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation and the Director of the Defense Test 
Resource Management Center, shall conduct a re-
view of test and evaluation policies and practices of 
the Department of Defense and issue such new or 
revised guidance as may be necessary to address 
emerging acquisition approaches. 
(2) ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED.—The issues to 
be addressed by the Under Secretary in the review 
under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, 
appropriate polices and practices for—
(A) ensuring the adequacy and the expedi-
ency of test and evaluation activities with re-
gard to—
(i) items that are acquired pursuant 
to the rapid acquisition authority in section 
806 of the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
(10 U.S.C. 2302 note); 
(ii) programs that are conducted pur-
suant to the spiral development authority 
in section 803 of the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 (10 U.S.C. 2430 note) (or other au-
thority for the conduct of incremental ac-
quisition programs) ; 
(iii) systems that are acquired pursu-
ant to other emerging acquisition ap-
proaches, as approved by the Under Sec-
retary; and 
(iv) materiel that is not subject to the 
operational test and evaluation require-
ments in sections 2366 and 2399 of title 
10, United States Code, but which may re-
quire limited operational test and evalua-
tion for the purposes of ensuring the safety
and realistic survivability of the materiel 
and the personnel using the materiel; and 
(B) the appropriate use, if any, of oper-
ational test and evaluation resources to assess 
technology readiness levels for purposes of sec-
tion 2366a of title 10, United States Code, and 
other applicable technology readiness require-
ments. 
(c) INCLUSION OF TESTING NEEDS IN STRATEGIC 
PLAN.—The Director of the Defense Test Resource Man-
agement Center shall ensure that the strategic plan for 
Department of Defense test and evaluation resources re-
quired by section 196 of title 10, United States Code—
(1) reflects any testing needs of the Depart-
ment of Defense that are identified in the review 
under paragraph (1); and 
(2) includes an assessment of the test and eval-
uation facilities, resources, and budgets that will be 
required to meet such needs. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than nine months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
on the review conducted, and any new or revised guidance 
issued, pursuant to subsection (b).
TITLE III—OPERATION AND 
MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 
Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding. 
Sec. 302. Working capital funds. 
Sec. 303. Other Department of Defense Programs. 
Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 
Sec. 311. Revision of requirement for unexploded ordnance program manager. 
Sec. 312. Identification and monitoring of military munitions disposal sites in 
ocean waters extending from United States coast to outer 
boundary of outer Continental Shelf. 
Sec. 313. Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 
in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 
Lake, Washington. 
Sec. 314. Funding of cooperative agreements under environmental restoration 
program. 
Sec. 315. Analysis and report regarding contamination and remediation respon-
sibility for Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point, Norwalk, Cali-
fornia. 
Sec. 316. Report regarding scope of perchlorate contamination at formerly used 
defense sites. 
Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues 
Sec. 321. Extension of exclusion of certain expenditures from percentage limita-
tion on contracting for depot-level maintenance. 
Sec. 322. Minimum capital investment for Air Force depots. 
Sec. 323. Extension of temporary authority for contractor performance of secu-
rity guard functions. 
Sec. 324. Report on CH–47 helicopter reset. 
Subtitle D—Reports 
Sec. 331. Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Depot Maintenance. 
Sec. 332. Report on Navy Fleet Response Plan. 
Sec. 333. Report on Navy surface ship rotational crew programs. 
Sec. 334. Report on Army live-fire ranges in Hawaii. 
Sec. 335. Comptroller General report on joint standards and protocols for ac-
cess control systems at Department of Defense installations. 
Sec. 336. Report on Personnel Security Investigations for Industry and Na-
tional Industrial Security Program. 
Subtitle E—Other Matters 
Sec. 341. Department of Defense strategic policy on prepositioning of materiel 
and equipment. 
Sec. 342. Authority to make Department of Defense horses available for adop-
tion at end of useful working life. 
Sec. 343. Sale and use of proceeds of recyclable munitions materials. 
Sec. 344. Capital security cost sharing.
Sec. 345. Prioritization of funds within Navy mission operations, ship mainte-
nance, combat support forces, and weapons system support. 
Sec. 346. Prioritization of funds within Army reconstitution and trans-
formation.
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2007 for the use of the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for 
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and 
maintenance, in amounts as follows: 
(1) For the Army, $24,920,735,000. 
(2) For the Navy, $31,089,075,000. 
(3) For the Marine Corps, $3,974,081,000. 
(4) For the Air Force, $31,098,957,000. 
(5) 
For 
Defense-wide 
activities, 
$19,876,763,000. 
(6) For the Army Reserve, $2,300,102,000. 
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $1,288,764,000. 
(8) 
For 
the 
Marine 
Corps 
Reserve, 
$211,911,000. 
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $2,723,800,000. 
(10) 
For 
the 
Army 
National 
Guard, 
$5,089,565,000. 
(11) 
For 
the 
Air 
National 
Guard, 
$5,336,017,000.
(12) For the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces, $11,721,000. 
(13) For Environmental Restoration, Army, 
$413,794,000. 
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, 
$304,409,000. 
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force, 
$423,871,000. 
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-
wide, $18,431,000. 
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly 
Used Defense Sites, $242,790,000. 
(18) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and 
Civic Aid programs, $63,204,000. 
(19) For Cooperative Threat Reduction pro-
grams, $372,128,000. 
(20) For the Overseas Contingency Operations 
Transfer Fund, $10,000,000. 
SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2007 for the use of the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for 
providing capital for working capital and revolving funds 
in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, 
$180,498,000. 
(2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, 
$1,138,732,000. 
(3) For the Defense Working Capital Fund, 
Defense Commissary, $1,184,000,000. 
SEC. 303. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS. 
(a) DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.—Funds are here-
by authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 
Defense for fiscal year 2007 for expenses, not otherwise 
provided for, for the Defense Health Program, in the 
amount of $21,226,521,000, of which—
(1) $20,699,563,000 is for Operation and 
Maintenance; 
(2) $130,603,000 is for Research, Development, 
Test, and Evaluation; and 
(3) $396,355,000 is for Procurement. 
(b) DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG AC-
TIVITIES, DEFENSE-WIDE.—Funds are hereby authorized 
to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fis-
cal year 2007 for expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide, in the amount of $926,890,000. 
(c) DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL.—Funds are 
hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of Defense for fiscal year 2007 for expenses, not otherwise 
provided for, for the Office of the Inspector General of 
the 
Department 
of 
Defense, 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$216,297,000, of which—
(1) $214,897,000 is for Operation and Mainte-
nance; 
(2) $1,400,000 is for Procurement; and 
(3) $0 is for Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation. 
Subtitle B—Environmental 
Provisions 
SEC. 311. REVISION OF REQUIREMENT FOR UNEXPLODED 
ORDNANCE PROGRAM MANAGER. 
Section 2701(k) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘establish’’ and inserting 
‘‘designate’’; 
(B) by inserting ‘‘research,’’ after ‘‘charac-
terization,’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘The position of program manager shall be 
filled by—
‘‘(A) in the case of an employee, an employee 
in a position that is equivalent to pay grade O–6 or 
above; or 
‘‘(B) in the case of a member of the armed 
forces, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, or Marine Corps who is serving in the 
grade of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, captain, 
or a higher grade.’’; and 
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(2) The program manager shall report to the Dep-
uty Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and En-
vironment.’’. 
SEC. 312. IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING OF MILITARY 
MUNITIONS DISPOSAL SITES IN OCEAN WA-
TERS EXTENDING FROM UNITED STATES 
COAST TO OUTER BOUNDARY OF OUTER CON-
TINENTAL SHELF. 
(a) IDENTIFICATION OF MILITARY MUNITIONS DIS-
POSAL SITES.—
(1) REVIEW
OF
HISTORICAL
RECORDS.—The 
Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of his-
torical records to determine—
(A) the number and probable locations of 
sites where the Armed Forces disposed of mili-
tary munitions within covered United States 
ocean waters; 
(B) the size of the disposal sites; and 
(C) the types and quantities of military 
munitions disposed of at the sites. 
(2) COOPERATION.—The Secretary shall re-
quest the assistance of the Coast Guard, the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 
other relevant Federal agencies in conducting the re-
view required by this subsection. 
(3) RELEASE
OF
INFORMATION.—The Sec-
retary shall periodically release, but no less often 
than annually, information obtained during the re-
view conducted under this subsection. The Secretary 
may withhold from public release information about 
the exact nature and location of a disposal site if the 
Secretary determines that the potential unauthorized 
retrieval of military munitions at the site could pose 
a significant threat to national defense or public 
safety. 
(4) REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec-
retary shall include the information obtained during 
a year through the review conducted under this sub-
section in the report submitted to Congress under
section 2706(a) of title 10, United States Code, for 
the same year. 
(b) IDENTIFICATION OF NAVIGATIONAL AND SAFETY 
HAZARDS.—
(1) INFORMATION FOR NAUTICAL CHARTS AND 
OTHER NAVIGATIONAL MATERIALS.—The Secretary 
shall share information obtained through the review 
conducted under subsection (a) with the Secretary of 
Commerce to assist the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration in preparing nautical 
charts and other navigational materials for covered 
United States ocean waters to identify known or 
probable hazards from disposed military munitions. 
(2) INFORMATION FOR USERS.—The Secretary 
shall continue activities to inform potentially af-
fected users of the ocean environment, and particu-
larly fishing operations, of the possible hazards from 
contact with military munitions and the proper 
methods to mitigate such hazards. 
(c) RESEARCH.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct 
research on the effects of military munitions dis-
posed of in covered United States ocean waters.
(2) SPECIFIED RESEARCH EFFORTS.—The re-
search conducted under this subsection shall include 
the following: 
(A) The sampling and analysis of ocean 
waters and seabeds at or adjacent to the mili-
tary munitions disposal sites selected by the 
Secretary under paragraph (4). 
(B) The investigation into the long-term 
effects of seawater exposure on military muni-
tions, particularly chemical munitions. 
(C) The development of effective safety 
measures when dealing with military munitions 
disposed of in seawater. 
(3) RESEARCH
METHODS.—In conducting re-
search under this subsection, the Secretary may 
make grants to, and enter into cooperative agree-
ments with, qualified research entities, as deter-
mined by the Secretary. 
(4) RESEARCH LOCATIONS.—In conducting re-
search under this subsection, the Secretary shall en-
sure that the sampling, analysis, and investigations 
are conducted at reasonably representative sites ap-
plying factors such as depth, water temperature, na-
ture of the military munitions present, and relative 
proximity to shore populations. The Secretary shall
select at least two representative sites from each of 
the following areas: 
(A) Along the Atlantic coast. 
(B) Along the Pacific coast (including the 
coast of Alaska). 
(C) Off the shore of the Hawaiian Islands. 
(d) MONITORING.—If research conducted under sub-
section (c) at a military munitions disposal site indicates 
that the disposed military munitions have caused or may 
be causing contamination of ocean waters or seabeds, the 
Secretary shall institute appropriate monitoring mecha-
nisms at that site to recognize and track the potential re-
lease of contamination into the ocean waters from military 
munitions. 
(e) EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY
ON HUMAN POPU-
LATIONS.—The Secretary shall conduct an epidemiological 
study on human populations in the vicinity of military mu-
nitions disposal sites within covered United States ocean 
waters for the purpose of determining whether people have 
been affected by the presence of military munitions in 
these waters. The Secretary shall include the results of 
the study in the report referred to in subsection (a)(4). 
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act:
(1) The term ‘‘coast line’’ has the same mean-
ing given that term in section 2 of the Submerged 
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301). 
(2) The term ‘‘covered United States ocean wa-
ters’’ means that part of the ocean extending from 
the coast line to the outer boundary of the outer 
Continental Shelf. 
(3) The term ‘‘military munitions’’ has the 
same meaning given that term in section 101(e) of 
title 10, United States Code. 
(4) The term ‘‘outer Continental Shelf’’ has the 
same meaning given that term in section 2 of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1331). 
(5) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 
of Defense. 
SEC. 313. REIMBURSEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
TION AGENCY FOR CERTAIN COSTS IN CON-
NECTION WITH MOSES LAKE WELLFIELD 
SUPERFUND 
SITE, 
MOSES 
LAKE, 
WASH-
INGTON. 
(a) AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE.—Using funds de-
scribed in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
transfer not more than $111,114.03 to the Moses Lake 
Wellfield Superfund Site 10–6J Special Account to reim-
burse the Environmental Protection Agency for the costs 
incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in over-
seeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study per-
formed by the Department of the Army under the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Program at the former Larson 
Air Force Base, Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, 
Moses Lake, Washington. This reimbursement is provided 
for in the March 1999 interagency agreement entered into 
by the Department of the Army and the Environmental 
Protection Agency for the Moses Lake Wellfield Super-
fund Site. 
(b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Any payment under sub-
section (a) shall be made using funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by section 301(17) for operation and mainte-
nance for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used De-
fense Sites. 
SEC. 314. FUNDING OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS UNDER 
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM. 
Section 2701(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new sen-
tence: ‘‘This two-year limitation does not apply to an 
agreement funded using amounts in the Department of 
Defense Base Closure Account 1990 or the Department 
of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 established under 
sections 2906 and 2906A of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public 
Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).’’. 
SEC. 315. ANALYSIS AND REPORT REGARDING CONTAMINA-
TION AND REMEDIATION RESPONSIBILITY 
FOR 
NORWALK 
DEFENSE 
FUEL 
SUPPLY 
POINT, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) ANALYSIS REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Air 
Force shall conduct a comprehensive analysis on the con-
tamination and remediation costs of the Norwalk Defense 
Fuel Supply Point in Norwalk, California. As part of the 
analysis, the Secretary shall—
(1) characterize the contamination at the Nor-
walk Defense Fuel Supply Point; 
(2) prepare a plan for the remediation of the 
Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point; 
(3) prepare an estimate of anticipated costs to 
responsible parties; 
(4) prepare a timeline for implementation and 
completion of the remediation at the Norwalk De-
fense Fuel Supply Point; 
(5) describe the status of efforts to reach an al-
location agreement of responsibility for remediation 
of the Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point with all 
entities that have contributed to the contamination 
of the property; and
(6) prepare a plan for removal or conveyance of 
infrastructure at the Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply 
Point, including costs and responsibility for those 
costs of elements of that plan. 
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than January 30, 
2007, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report con-
taining the results of the analysis conducted under sub-
section (a) and addressing each of the matters specified 
in paragraphs (1) through (6) of such subsection. 
(c) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary 
shall not convey property by public auction at the Norwalk 
Defense Fuel Supply Point before such time as the Sec-
retary has—
(1) pursued a fair market transfer of the prop-
erty to the City of Norwalk, California, taking into 
consideration all contamination of the property; 
(2) submitted the report required by subsection 
(b); and 
(3) submitted an additional report to Congress 
explaining the efforts undertaken by the Secretary to 
reach agreement with the City on the sale of the 
property, including the reasons that those efforts 
were not successful, and 30-days have elapsed after 
this report is submitted.
SEC. 316. REPORT REGARDING SCOPE OF PERCHLORATE 
CONTAMINATION AT FORMERLY USED DE-
FENSE SITES. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to Congress a report containing the results of a study of 
the scope of perchlorate contamination at Formerly Used 
Defense Sites. As part of the report, the Secretary shall 
identify the military installations or contractors that may 
have stored perchlorate or products containing per-
chlorate. 
Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot 
Issues 
SEC. 321. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPEND-
ITURES FROM PERCENTAGE LIMITATION ON 
CONTRACTING FOR DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTE-
NANCE. 
Section 2474(f)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2003 through 2009’’ 
and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2003 through 2014’’. 
SEC. 322. MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR AIR FORCE 
DEPOTS. 
(a) INVESTMENT REQUIRED.—Chapter 803 of title 
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following new section:
‘‘§ 8025. Minimum capital investment in Air Force de-
pots 
‘‘(a) MINIMUM INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT.—Each 
fiscal year, the Secretary of the Air Force shall invest in 
the capital budgets of the depots of the Air Force a total 
amount equal to not less than six percent of the total com-
bined revenue of all the depots of the Air Force for the 
preceding fiscal year. 
‘‘(b) WAIVER.—The Secretary of the Air Force may 
waive the requirement under subsection (a) if the Sec-
retary determines that the waiver is necessary for reasons 
of national security and notifies the congressional defense 
committees.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 
at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 
at the end the following new item:
‘‘8025. Minimum capital investment for Air Force depots.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 8025 of title 10, 
United States Code, shall apply with respect to fiscal years 
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 323. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR 
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY 
GUARD FUNCTIONS. 
(a) ONE-YEAR EXTENSION.—Section 332(c) of the 
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) is amended by striking
‘‘September 30, 2007’’ both places it appears and insert-
ing ‘‘September 30, 2008’’. 
(b) REPORT ON CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE OF SE-
CURITY-GUARD FUNCTIONS.—Not later than February 1, 
2007, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, 
a report on contractor performance of security guard func-
tions under section 332 of the Bob Stump National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 
107–314). The report shall include the following: 
(1) An explanation of progress made toward im-
plementing each of the seven recommendations in 
the Comptroller General report entitled ‘‘Contract 
Security Guards: Army’s Guard Program Requires 
Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition 
Approach’’ (GAO–06–284). 
(2) An assessment, taking into considerations 
the observations made by the GAO on the report of 
the Department of Defense of November 2005 that 
is entitled ‘‘Department of Defense Installation Se-
curity Guard Requirement Assessment and Plan’’, of 
the following:
(A) The cost-effectiveness of using contrac-
tors rather than Department of Defense em-
ployees to perform security-guard functions. 
(B) The performance of contractors em-
ployed as security 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 De-
fense to military installations using contractors 
to perform security-guard functions. 
(c) CONTRACT LIMITATION.—No contract may be en-
tered into under section 332 of the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107–314) after September 30, 2007, until the report 
required under subsection (b) is submitted. 
SEC. 324. REPORT ON CH–47 HELICOPTER RESET. 
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report that out-
lines the plan of the Army to reset all CH–47 aircraft in 
the active and reserve components. The Secretary shall in-
clude in the report a description of the plan, the timeline, 
and the costs for the reset of those aircraft.
Subtitle D—Reports 
SEC. 331. REPORT ON NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINE 
DEPOT MAINTENANCE. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than February 1, 
2007, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 
a report describing the criteria used when a nuclear attack 
submarine is sent to a facility other than a facility located 
within 200 miles of the homeport of the submarine for 
maintenance described in subsection (d) when there is a 
public or private facility located within 200 miles of the 
homeport at which the maintenance required could be con-
ducted. 
(b) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report required 
under subsection (a) shall include the following: 
(1) An assessment of the cost of housing for 
the crew of the submarine. 
(2) The costs associated with traveling to the 
homeport of the submarine for official duty. 
(3) The treatment of crew time while the sub-
marine is undergoing nondeployed maintenance work 
away from the homeport. 
(4) An assessment of the effect that mainte-
nance conducted away from the homeport of a sub-
marine has on the families of the members stationed 
on that submarine. 
(5) An analysis of the retention of officers and 
enlisted members stationed on the submarine. 
(6) An analysis of the use of fixed maintenance 
crews or semi-permanent engineering crews for 
maintenance availabilities that exceed 13 months. 
(c) RESTRICTION
ON MAINTENANCE AWAY FROM 
HOMEPORT.—
(1) RESTRICTION.—During fiscal year 2007, 
the Secretary of the Navy may not conduct mainte-
nance described in subsection (d) on a nuclear at-
tack submarine at a facility other than a facility lo-
cated within 200 miles of the homeport of that sub-
marine if there is a public or private facility located 
within 200 miles of the homeport at which the main-
tenance required could be conducted without ad-
versely affecting operational deployment schedules. 
(2) NOTIFICATION REQUIRED.—Not later than 
five days before maintenance restricted under para-
graph (1) is conducted due to operation deployment 
schedules, the Secretary of the Navy shall provide to 
the congressional defense committees written notice 
of the maintenance that is to be conducted and the 
justification for conducting that maintenance.
(d) COVERED
MAINTENANCE.—Maintenance de-
scribed in this subsection is any of the following: 
(1) Maintenance referred to as selected re-
stricted availability maintenance. 
(2) Maintenance referred to as preinactivation 
restricted availability maintenance. 
(3) Maintenance referred to as extended se-
lected restricted availability maintenance. 
(4) Maintenance referred to as interim dry dock 
availabilities. 
SEC. 332. 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 Com-
mittee 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 fol-
lowing: 
(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 ob-
jectives of the Plan.
(4) Operational tests, exercises, war games, ex-
periments, and deployments used to test perform-
ance. 
(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 re-
spect to each ship participating in the Plan: 
(A) Combat Readiness. 
(B) Ship material condition. 
(C) Number of maintenance deficiencies. 
(D) Amount of maintenance accomplished 
while underway. 
(E) Amount of maintenance accomplished 
at pier dockings. 
(F) Number of voyage repairs during each 
deployment. 
(G) Combat skills training requirements 
accomplished during a deployment and at the 
home station. 
(H) Professional development training re-
quirements accomplished during a deployment 
and at home station. 
(I) Crew retention statistics.
(7) Any proposed changes to the Surface Force 
Training Manual. 
(8) The amount of funding required to effec-
tively implement the operations and maintenance re-
quirements of the Plan and the effect of providing 
funding in an amount less than that amount. 
(9) Any recommendations of the Secretary of 
the Navy with respect to expanding the Plan to in-
clude Expeditionary Strike Groups. 
(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later 
than March 15, 2007, the Comptroller General shall sub-
mit to the congressional defense committees a report con-
taining a review of the Navy report required under sub-
section (a). The report shall include the following: 
(1) An examination of the management ap-
proaches of the Navy in implementing the Fleet Re-
sponse Plan. 
(2) An assessment of the adequacy of Navy di-
rectives and guidance with respect to maintenance 
and training requirements and procedures. 
(3) An analysis and assessment of the adequacy 
of the Navy’s test, exercises, and evaluation criteria. 
(4) An evaluation of Navy data on aircraft car-
riers, destroyers, and cruisers that participated in 
the Fleet Response Plan with respect to readiness,
response time, and availability for routine or unfore-
seen deployments. 
(5) An assessment of the Navy’s progress in 
identifying the amount of funding required to effec-
tively implement the operations and maintenance re-
quirements of the Fleet Response Plan and the ef-
fect of providing funding in an amount less than 
that amount. 
(6) Any recommendations of the Comptroller 
General with respect to expanding the Fleet Re-
sponse 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 October 1, 2007. 
SEC. 333. REPORT ON NAVY SURFACE SHIP ROTATIONAL 
CREW PROGRAMS. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than April 1, 
2007, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Com-
mittee 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 con-
sideration each of the following: 
(A) Cost-effectiveness, including a com-
parison of travel and per diem expenses, main-
tenance costs, and other costs. 
(B) Maintenance procedures, impacts, and 
deficiencies, including the number and charac-
terization of maintenance deficiencies, the ex-
tent of voyage repairs, post-deployment assess-
ments of the material condition of the ships, 
and the extent to which work levels were main-
tained. 
(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 com-
manding officers, officers, and enlisted members on 
the effects of rotational crew experiments on quality 
of life, training, professional development, mainte-
nance, 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 destroyer experi-
ment. 
(5) An assessment from the combatant com-
manders on the crew mission performance when de-
ployed. 
(6) An assessment from the commander of the 
Fleet Forces Command on the material condition, 
maintenance, and crew training of each participating 
ship. 
(7) Any recommendations of the Secretary of 
the Navy with respect to the extension of the ship 
rotational crew experiment or the implementation of 
the experiment for other surface vessels. 
(b) POSTPONEMENT
OF
IMPLEMENTATION.—The 
Secretary of the Navy may not begin implementation of 
any new surface ship rotational crew experiment or pro-
gram during the period beginning on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act and ending on October 1, 2009. 
(c) TREATMENT OF EXISTING EXPERIMENTS.—
(1) DESTROYER EXPERIMENT.—Not later than 
January 1, 2007, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
terminate the existing ship rotational crew experi-
ment involving the U.S.S. Gonzalez (DDG–66), the 
U.S.S. Stout (DDG–55), and the U.S.S. Laboon 
(DDG–58) that is known as the ‘‘sea swap’’. 
(2) PATROL
COASTAL
CLASS
SHIP
EXPERI-
MENT.—The Secretary of the Navy may continue 
the existing ship rotational crew program that is 
currently in use by overseas-based Patrol Coastal 
class ships. 
(d) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later 
than July 15, 2007, the Comptroller General shall submit 
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Rep-
resentatives a report on the ship rotational crew experi-
ment referred to in subsection (c)(1). The report shall in-
clude the following: 
(1) A review of the report submitted by the 
Secretary of the Navy under subsection (a) and an 
assessment of the extent to which the Secretary fully 
addressed costs, quality of life, training, mainte-
nance, and mission effectiveness, and other relevant 
issues in that report. 
(2) An assessment of the extent to which the 
Secretary established and applied a comprehensive 
framework for assessing the use of ship rotational 
crew 
experiments, 
including 
formal 
objectives, 
metrics, and methodology for assessing the cost-ef-
fectiveness of such experiments. 
(3) An assessment of the extent to which the 
Secretary established effective guidance for the use 
of ship rotational crew experiments. 
(4) Lessons learned from recent ship rotational 
crew experiments and an assessment of the extent to 
which the Navy systematically collects and shares 
lessons learned. 
(e) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT.—
Not later than July 15, 2007, the Director of the Congres-
sional Budget Office shall submit a report to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 
on the long-term implications of the use of crew rotation 
on Navy ships on the degree of forward presence provided 
by Navy ships. The report shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of different approaches to crew 
rotation and the degree of forward presence each ap-
proach would provide. 
(2) A comparison of the degree of forward pres-
ence provided by the fleet under the long-term ship-
building plan of the Navy with and without the 
widespread use of crew rotation. 
(3) The long-term benefits and costs of using 
crew rotation on Navy ships. 
SEC. 334. REPORT ON ARMY LIVE-FIRE RANGES IN HAWAII. 
Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of the 
Army shall submit to Congress a report on the adequacy 
of the live-fire ranges of the Army in the State of Hawaii 
with respect to current and future training requirements. 
The report shall include the following: 
(1) An evaluation of the capacity of the existing 
live-fire ranges to meet the training requirements of 
the Army, including the training requirements of 
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. 
(2) A description of any existing plan to modify 
or expand any range in Hawaii for the purpose of 
meeting anticipated live-fire training requirements. 
(3) A description of the current live-fire restric-
tions at the Makua Valley range and the effect of 
these restrictions on unit readiness.
(4) Cost and schedule estimates for the con-
struction of new ranges or the modification of exist-
ing ranges that are necessary to support future 
training requirements if existing restrictions on 
training at the Makua Valley range remain in place. 
SEC. 335. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON JOINT 
STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS FOR ACCESS 
CONTROL SYSTEMS AT DEPARTMENT OF DE-
FENSE INSTALLATIONS. 
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comp-
troller General shall submit to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices of the House of Representatives a report containing 
the assessment of the Comptroller General of—
(1) the extent to which consistency exists in 
standards, protocols, and procedures for access con-
trol across installations of the Department of De-
fense; and 
(2) whether the establishment of joint stand-
ards and protocols for access control at such instal-
lations would be likely to—
(A) address any need of the Department 
identified by the Comptroller General; or