Fort Monmouth: Signal Interruption

VIEWPOINT
Each year, OSA jointly sponsors
two Congressional Fellows—one
in conjunction with the Materials
Research Society (MRS) and
the other with the International
Society for Optical Engineering
(SPIE). The 2006 fellows Ben
Gross and Jamie Link work in
the offices of Representative
Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.),
Credit
Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and Senator
VIEWPOINT
respectively.
Ben and Jamie have spent
much time addressing issues at
the forefront of Congressional
debates. Ben has been
examining the implications of
the government’s decision to
close Fort Monmouth, an Army
center for telecommunications
and electronic research. The crux
of Jamie’s effort has been on the
National Innovation Act, which
is intended to help the United
States maintain its competitive
edge by bolstering math and
science education and retaining
manufacturing capability.
Following are editorials on
these key topics. Please
note that these viewpoints
are those of the writers;
they do not necessary
reflect the opinions
of OSA or OPN.
12 | OPN September 2006
MRS/OSA
Congressional
Fellow Ben Gross
Fort Monmouth: Signal Interruption
I
n 2005, the U.S. Base Realignment
communications gear, networking
and Closure (BRAC) Commission
systems, sensor technology, fuel cell and
made an unfortunate miscalculation:
battery technology and roadside bomb
It decided to close the Army’s premier
countermeasures, just to name a few.
telecommunications and electronics
Fort Monmouth is the backbone of
research, development, testing and
the Army’s land Command, Control,
evaluation (RDT&E) facility at Fort
Communications, Computers, IntelMonmouth, N.J.
ligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Congress appointed the BRAC in
(C4ISR) mission, which is to be trans2005 to streamline military operations.
ferred from Monmouth County, N.J., to
The commission was asked to create a
the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in
comprehensive plan to eliminate or reMaryland by no later then 2011.
structure military resources for improved
At first glance, the move to APG
efficiency, subject to approval by the
appears sensible. By consolidating
Department of Defense, the President
two RDT&E facilities, the Army
and Congress.
hopes to increase efficiency by sharing
Working as a science fellow in the
administrative resources, equipment
office of Rep. Rush Holt (a physicist and
and laboratories. However, what many
former Congressional science fellow),
fail to understand is that APG is largely
I help Congress to
a heavy equipment and
navigate the implicaweapons testing facility,
According to a
tions of the closure
not a computer science
of Fort Monmouth.
and electrical engineering
National Defense
This may seem like
research facility. The stateUniversity (NDU)
an unlikely task for a
of-the-art labs and facilities
science fellow, but Fort
at Fort Monmouth do not
study, the costs
Monmouth directly
exist at APG, nor is there
of transferring
employs more than
a C4ISR culture like the
functions to the
1,500 civilian scientists
one that has evolved at
and engineers and
Fort Monmouth over its
new facility were
supports a network of
89-year history.
underestimated
locally based contracApparently, the BRAC
tors. The massive list of
believed that the transfer
by the BRAC
technology developed
of C4ISR research from
Commission by
and serviced at Fort
Fort Monmouth would
Monmouth includes
up to $1.2 billion.
require merely moving
www.osa-opn.org
OSA
its workforce to expanded facilities at
Aberdeen. Unfortunately, this thinking
belies a terrible misunderstanding about
Fort Monmouth’s highly qualified, welleducated and experienced workforce: An
internal survey shows that fewer than 20
percent of employees intend to move.
Monmouth County has a relatively
high standard of living (the median new
home price is $750,000), and many
Fort employees and contractors simply
do not want to move to Aberdeen.
The result for the Army’s mission means
it will have to replace its current workforce in the middle of a conflict in the
Middle East.
According to a National Defense
University (NDU) study, the costs of
transferring functions to the new facility
were underestimated by the BRAC Commission by up to $1.2 billion. The same
NDU study estimates that it will take
SPIE/OSA
Congressional
Fellow Jamie Link
Not All Politics Is Local
W
hen I arrived in Sen. Lieberman’s
The group is split down party lines, with
office last fall, in what has been
roughly equal numbers of Republican
called one of the most partisan Congressand Democrat backers, and they run the
es in history, I braced myself for a year
gamut from fiscal conservatives to cenof bickering across party lines and over
trists to members on the far left. Indeed,
state priorities. In fact, my
you’d be hard pressed to
experience has turned out
find any Senators who
Innovation and
quite differently.
would describe themselves
I have spent the past
competitiveness as “anti-innovation.”
nine months working on
Innovation and comare national
the National Innovation
petitiveness are national
issues that
Act (NIA), a bipartisan
issues that resonate with
effort by Senators Ensign
constituents in all 50 states
resonate with
and Lieberman to mainin a very concrete and
constituents in
tain America’s competitivevisible way. Every state has
ness in the 21st century.
school children who are
all 50 states in
There are 24 co-sponcurrently outperformed in
a very concrete
sors of the NIA, almost
math and science by their
and visible way.
a quarter of the Senate.
peers in India and China
10 years to bring C4ISR functionality
back to 2005 levels. This is time the
military does not have. Like too many
decisions in Washington, the closure of
Fort Monmouth underscores how few
policymakers understand the distinctions between vital areas of research,
and how many fail to appreciate the
value and experience of research scientists and engineers.
— Ben Gross
(and in much of Europe for that matter),
and they all have small manufacturers
that struggle to remain competitive with
their offshore counterparts, which can
obtain labor at one-tenth the cost.
Many of the provisions in the National Innovation Act address these issues.
There is no state that would not benefit
from student scholarships and grants to
universities, and none that could not utilize services that would help our country
retain its manufacturing capability and
the innovation infrastructure that surrounds it. Every American should share
the desire to build a nimble and adaptable 21st century workforce and maintain our competitive edge in the global
marketplace.
Despite the broad appeal of this issue,
it has taken the energy of many people
to gather support for the bill and carry it
through the legislative process. In a system that is designed to allow only a tiny
fraction of bills introduced to be signed
into law, there is hard work involved
every step of the way. Nonetheless, there
is a reasonable chance that a competitiveness package will pass this year with
strong bipartisan support.
Competitiveness is an issue that is
international in its scope and implications. When Sen. Lieberman talks about
the National Innovation Act to his constituents in Connecticut, he can say with
confidence that the legislation is “good
for the state, and good for America.”
Fortunately, so could any other member
of the Senate.
— Jamie Link
OPN September 2006 | 13