The U.S. Government Accountability Office, which is described on its Web site as “the investigative arm of Congress,” has notified six members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation that it intends to review “the methodology of a forthcoming DOD [Department of Defense] report on the transfer of technical capabilities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.”
In a Sept. 6 letter to Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendes, both Democrats, and Reps. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) and Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), Brian J. Lepore, director of Defense Capabilities and Management of the GAO, summarized the comments the agency made publicly in the 2005 BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) round and agreed to review the methodology of the upcoming DOD report
As part of BRAC process in 2005, the DOD made the decision to close Fort Monmouth by 2011. A condition required in the process was that the DOD issue a report confirming that moving the fort’s technical capabilities to Aberdeen would not disrupt the global war on terror.
Although the DOD report has not been issued, the Army has made public plans to move 32 employees to Aberdeen and one employee has already been transferred.
Henry Kearney, a spokesman for the Army, said Tuesday that the one-person move was not related to BRAC.
He also said that an advance move of around 32 employees, who have technologybased positions, was not precluded by the BRAC requirement for a report that found that transferring the fort’s technical capabilities would not have an adverse effect on the war on terrorism.
Tom O’Donnell, chief of staff for Holt, said that data indicated that hardly anyone from the fort’s technical staff would move to Aberdeen.
He said Tuesday that a letter was being prepared to send to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asking that the DOD issue the required report showing that the proposed move of the Fort Monmouth personnel would not impact the war effort. The letter would come from the entire New Jersey congressional delegation, O’Donnell said.
A section of the GAO letter, which gave a summary of comments the agency made in the 2005 BRAC round, said, “We identified the potential loss of human capital skills, including expertise and experience, as an issue for some of the DOD’s proposed realignment and closure actions. We pointed out to the commission that gaining bases may face challenges if fewer people moved.”
“For example,” it continued, “related to the proposed but subsequently overturned closure of Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Me., officials from one of the joint cross-service groups estimated it would have taken up to eight years to fully develop skills associated with nuclear-powered submarines.
“Officials at Fort Monmouth, expressed a similar concern about the proposed closure of the installation and transfer of a large portion of work to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,” the letter said.
In addition to the request for a review of the awaited DOD report by the GAO, members of Congress have asked for a hearing on the BRAC decisions.
Holt, with the support of Pallone, has asked for hearings by the House Armed Services Committee on the BRAC process that called for closing Fort Monmouth. Smith and Saxton have also called for the committee to hold hearings on the closing.
And on Aug. 4, Sen. Susan Collins (RMe.) sent a letter to Sen. Carl Levin (DMich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the committee’s ranking member, calling for a review of the BRAC process.
Collins is a member of the committee.
Opposition to closing the 90-year-old fort has been strengthened as reports show the estimated cost of the closing has doubled and now stands at $1.5 billion.-