The future of Fort Monmouth: BRAC 2005

Alison Dorosz, DCSOPS

For some, the year 2005 seems far off. For those in the DoD aware of the Base Realignment and Closure round to occur in 2005, better known as BRAC 2005, it is coming all too quickly. All components of DoD - military, civilian, and contractors - are affected when there is a decision made to close or realign a military base. Many perceive BRAC as a threat, but it can also be an opportunity for military installations to gain missions and functions. For that reason, it is important to understand the objectives and goals of BRAC 2005 and what that might mean to Fort Monmouth. The origins of base closings and realignments date back to the 1960’s when President Kennedy realized that certain infrastructure created during World War II and the Korean War was no longer necessary, resulting in the closure of 60 military bases. In the 1980’s the DoD again reassessed its mission and requirements to meet the challenges at that time. As a result, in 1988, the first BRAC commission, made up of independent and bipartisan appointees, made recommendations to close or realign military installations. Since then, three additional rounds of BRAC were authorized under the Defense Base Realignment Act of 1990: one in 1991, one in 1993 and another in 1995. As a result of the four rounds, 352 DoD facilities have been closed, including 97 major installations, and 145 have been realigned, reducing the infrastructure of military installations by 21 percent in the continental United States. In July 2001, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld advised the House Armed Services Committee that DoD’s military infrastructure was currently 25 percent greater than what was needed and requested approval for another round of closings. This single round would be greater than the four previous rounds put together and no military bases would be exempt from consideration. In December of 2001, Congress authorized the additional round to begin in 2005 and thus began BRAC 2005. Not only is this expected to be the largest BRAC effort in the past 15 years, but there will also be a greater emphasis on creating joint services facilities. Rumsfeld stated in a November 2002 memo that, “A primary objective of BRAC 2005, in addition to realigning our base structure to meet our post-Cold War force structure, is to examine and implement opportunities for greater joint activity. Prior BRAC analyses considered all functions on a service-by-service basis and, therefore, did not result in the joint examination of functions that cross services. While some unique functions may exist, those functions that are common across the services must be analyzed on a joint basis.” The BRAC 2005 analysis will be divided between two categories of functions: service unique functions, to be analyzed by the Military Departments and common business-oriented support functions, to be analyzed by joint cross-service teams. This new approach is part of the defense transformation effort to reshape the military in order to optimize warfighting capability and efficiency. Among other changes to key BRAC legislation, the selection criteria to be used will place a greater importance on military value. Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that military value is the primary consideration in making recommendations. This includes: the preservation of training areas; preservation of installations as staging areas; preservation of installations to provide a diversity of training; impact on joint war fighting, training, and readiness; and contingency, mobilizations, and future total force requirements. The selection criteria also will address special considerations, including: the extent of potential costs and savings, the economic impact on local communities, the cost of environmental restoration, and the impact on other federal agencies. This list of selection criteria is not final; the Secretary of Defense has until December 03 to develop one for public review. DoD has already been conducting activities in preparation for BRAC 2005, such as data collection and preparing documentation, although the following timeline gives a better idea of the milestones leading up to the final BRAC decision in December 2005:

Dec. 31 - Not later than this date, the Secretary of Defense shall publish the proposed selection criteria for public review.

February 2004 - The Secretary of Defense shall submit the following to Congress: a Force Structure Plan & Inventory of Infrastructure Requirements, certification that BRAC 2005 will result in a savings for all services within six years, and final selection criteria.

March 2004 - Congressional resolution of disapproval, if any, on selection criteria.

March 15, 2005- Not later than this date, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm nine members to the BRAC Commission.

May 16, 2005 - Not later than this date, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a BRAC list to Congress and the BRAC Commission.

July 1, 2005 - Not later than this date, General Accounting Office shall report on the Secretary of Defense’s BRAC recommendations and selection process.

September 8, 2005 - Not later than this date, the BRAC Commission submits a list of recommendations based on a review and analysis of the Secretary’s recommendation.

September 23, 2005- Not later than this date, the President shall submit a report to Congress containing the President’s approval or disapproval of the Commission’s recommendations. If the President approves the recommendations, the recommendations are binding 45 days after the President sends them to Congress, unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.

October 20, 2005- Not later than this date, the Commission must submit revised recommendations to the President, if the President disapproves the Commission's initial recommendations.

November 7, 2005 - Not later than this date, the President must approve the entire list of revised recommendations and transmit approval to Congress or the process ends. The recommendations are binding 45 days after the President sends them to Congress, unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.

December 2005- All decisions are final.

Fort Monmouth and CECOM are familiar with BRAC and its opportunities. In 1993, the BRAC Commission made the recommendation to realign Fort Monmouth, moving CECOM Headquarters out of leased space in Tinton Falls into space at main post and to dispose of excess facilities and real property at Evans and Charles Woods sub-posts. Also under BRAC 1993, the commission recommended the closure of a CECOM installation, Vint Hill Farms Station, Va., relocating its CECOM functions to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pa. and Fort Monmouth. Even though these activities caused economic and social disruption to Fort Monmouth, Vint Hill Farms, and the local communities, BRAC 1993 provided CECOM and Fort Monmouth an opportunity to strengthen its role in DoD. The command overall benefited from the consolidation of its activities by maximizing the utilization of main post. Also, the Army was able to eliminate a significant lease cost of the CECOM office building, saving $15 million annually, and many facilities at Fort Monmouth were modernized as a result of the realignment and closure. What does all this mean to the future of Fort Monmouth? If a main objective of BRAC 2005 is to consolidate cross-service functions then this could be advantageous to Fort Monmouth. The mission of Team Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors is currently shared among the services and has potential for greater joint cross-servicing. Additionally, special consideration will be given to the economic impact that installations have on the local community. According to a 2000 economic report, “CECOM at Fort Monmouth, The Impact of Expenditures and Salaries on New Jersey Business,” Fort Monmouth has a $2.5 billion impact on New Jersey’s economy, supports over 22,000 jobs in the state’s economy, and for each job the fort creates, 2.88 additional jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. These hard figures paint a clear picture of the fort’s impact on the state’s economy, but it is too soon to make any assumptions on how this and the other considerations will affect Fort Monmouth in the next BRAC round. If BRAC 2005 is true to its goal of considering all military bases, then we must be aware that it could very well affect Fort Monmouth and possibly open doors for the fort to play a greater role in the future of the Army, DoD, and most importantly – the soldier.