Turning up the heat on the BRAC
GOP legislators want new hearings on Fort Monmouth
BY LINDA DeNICOLA
Staff Writer

Monmouth County politicians are hoping to put the feasibility of keeping Fort Monmouth open back on the table after questions were raised about the economic and safety ramifications of the fort closure.

They are asking the federal government to hold new hearings on the decision to close the U.S. Army installation reached as a result of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure process.

Three Republicans, state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-13,) Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck (R-12) and Assemblyman Sean Kean (R-11), have sent a letter to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) requesting that new BRAC hearings be held regarding the planned closure of the Fort Monmouth Army base since charges surfaced in the press that the Department of Defense (DOD) withheld key information from the BRAC Commission.

In their letter to Anthony J. Principi, chairman of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realign-ment Commission in Arlington, Va., the officials note that new information has recently been uncovered which revealed "blatant flaws in the process that led to the decision by the BRAC commission to close the Fort Monmouth Army facility, we are hereby requesting a new round of BRAC hearings."

They continue: "As we are all well aware, the purpose of the BRAC-recommended closures was consolidation and the resulting cost savings to taxpayers.

"However, a recent investigation by the Asbury Park Press found that the projected cost of closing Fort Monmouth and moving its research functions to Aberdeen, Md., will now cost twice what was originally estimated, an increase from $780 million to $1.5 billion.

"Add to that the $3.3 billion loss to New Jersey's economy coupled with the estimated $16 billion it will cost Maryland for needed infrastructure improvements to accommodate the largest job influx since World War II.

"We fail to see how this is a cost-savings plan," they said, adding that while the increase in cost alone is staggering and flies in the face of a supposed "cost-cutting plan," most troubling are news reports that critical information relevant to the impact of closure was withheld by the Department of Defense (DOD).

"Based on this new information, it is obvious that both the BRAC Commission and Congress were duped by the DOD," they said. They added, "While the shuttering of Fort Monmouth would certainly have adverse economic implications for the State of New Jersey and the communities surrounding the facility, one must also consider the impact this closure would have on our nation's security.

"It is estimated that the closure of the base would result in a future deficit of nearly 7,000 scientists and engineers who are critical to the development of weapons technology to fight the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as future conflicts."

They noted that there is far too much at stake to allow the original BRAC recommendations to stand.

Two days before the Kyrillos, Beck and Kean letter went out, five New Jersey lawmakers sent a letter to U.S. Army Materiel Command Commanding Gen. Benjamin S. Griffin saying that the Army's plan to move 49 employees from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) violates the 2005 Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) Report.

In the letter, U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6), Rush Holt (D-12) and Christopher Smith (R-4) and U.S. Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) wrote that no employees should be moved to APG until it has been clearly shown that mission disruption will not occur.

"We are writing in response to a recent plan to send an advance team of CERDEC scientists and engineers from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). A letter to employees of the CERDEC stated that a team of 49 employees in a number of mission areas would be moved from Fort Monmouth to APG during the 2008 fiscal year."

They state that this advance team move would only be the first of many advance teams sent to APG and the process would be repeated at the beginning of every calendar year to slowly move resources to APG from Fort Monmouth.

"We feel that this advance team plan cannot take place without causing a degradation of service to the war fighter in the area of communications electronics," they said, adding that the Department of Defense has yet to provide any information to Congress regarding how this move could take place without disrupting the global war on terror.

"It is our opinion that no employees should be moved to APG until it has been clearly shown that mission disruption will not occur," the legislators state.