LIMITATION ON TRANSITION OF FUNDING FOR EAST COAST SHIPYARDS FROM FUNDING THROUGH NAVY WORKING CAPITAL FUND TO DIRECT FUNDING.

SEC. 322. LIMITATION ON TRANSITION OF FUNDING FOR EAST COAST SHIPYARDS FROM FUNDING THROUGH NAVY WORKING CAPITAL FUND TO DIRECT FUNDING.(a) Limitation.—The Secretary of the Navy may not convert funding for the shipyards of the Navy on the east coast of the United States from funding through the working capital fund of the Navy to funding on a direct basis (also known as “mission funding”) before October 1, 2006.(b) Report on Direct Funding for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.—(1) Report required.—Not later than March 1, 2006, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains the assessment of the Secretary on the effects on Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Washington, of 119 STAT. 3192 the conversion of that shipyard from funding through the working capital fund of the Navy to funding on a direct basis.(2) Matters to be included.—The report under paragraph (1) shall address the effect of the conversion of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to direct funding on each of the following:(A) The cost visibility of specific work performed.(B) The total cost of consolidated ship maintenance operations on an ongoing basis.(C) The ability to distinguish between depot and intermediate work of consolidated ship maintenance activities.(D) The costs associated with buyout expenses for the transfer of the shipyards of the Navy on the east coast of the United States from funding through the working capital fund of the Navy to funding on a direct basis.(E) The flexibility of the shipyard to continue routine ship maintenance operations during a potential funding gap at the beginning of a fiscal year or when expected maintenance costs exceed annual appropriations.(F) Operational and financial flexibility and responsiveness of funding on a direct basis compared to funding through the working capital fund of the Navy.(G) Long-term funding for the capital improvement programs of the shipyard.(H) Compliance with section 2460 of title 10, United States Code, which defines the work that is considered to be depot-level maintenance and repair versus work that is considered to be a major modification of a weapons system.(I) Compliance with section 2466 of title 10, United Status Code, which limits the amount of depot-level maintenance and repair workload of the Department of Navy that is performed by non-Federal Government personnel in any fiscal year to not more than 50 percent of the total depot workload reported to the Department in that fiscal year.(J) Compliance with sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, which require agencies to set annual performance goals, measure performance toward the achievement of those goals, and publicly report on progress.(K) Compliance with chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code, which requires audited financial statements to include the ability to properly charge and account for reimbursable workload.(3) Government accountability office review.—Not later than 60 days after the date on which the report required under paragraph (1) is submitted, the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense committees a review of the report, which shall include the Comptroller General’s assessment of whether the report adequately addresses each of the matters specified under paragraph (2).(c) Report on Proposed Congressional Budget Exhibits for Navy Mission-Funded Shipyards.—(1) Report required.—Not later than March 1, 2006, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that proposes congressional budget exhibits for use 119 STAT. 3193 in connection with the funding of Navy shipyards on a direct basis.(2) Matters to be included.—The report under paragraph (1) shall comprehensively address the following:(A) The establishment of annual categories, metrics, and measurements to objectively compare the performance of each shipyard over time with respect to the following:(i) Schedule adherence.(ii) Quality of work.(iii) Cost management.(iv) Administrative efficiency.(v) Number of hulls for which repairs are completed during the fiscal year.(vi) Number of hulls that are in the process of being repaired at the end of the fiscal year.(B) Capital replenishment for each shipyard.(C) Workload indicators to determine whether each shipyard is effectively utilized.(D) Annual budget management reports to enable effective monitoring of each shipyard with respect to the following:(i) Obligation authority from Department of the Navy accounts, including operation and maintenance funds for the Atlantic Fleet, the Pacific Fleet, and the Naval Sea Systems Command and procurement funds for the Navy shipbuilding and conversion account and the other procurement accounts.(ii) Obligation authority provided by reimbursement from non-Department of the Navy sources, including other Department of Defense accounts, foreign military sales accounts, other Federal Government agency accounts, and non-Federal Government sources.(iii) Costs and expenses of military personnel, civilian personnel, materials, contracts, travel, supplies, overhead, and other costs.(iv) Capital expenditures.(v) Military construction.(vi) Base operating support.(vii) Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.(viii) Personnel and labor management, including military end strengths, civilian end strengths, military mandays, and civilian mandays.(3) Congressional budget office review.—Not later than 60 days after the date on which the report required under paragraph (1) is submitted, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall submit to the congressional defense committees a review of the report, which shall include the Director’s assessment of whether the report comprehensively addresses each of the matters specified in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2).