SENATE LANGUAGE ON RAB ASSISTANCE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

RAB LANGUAGE CHANGED

 At the urging of Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), on 
August 5 the Senate made changes in the Defense Authorization Act 
that improve the provision dealing with Restoration Advisory 
Boards. However, the current language still could derail and would 
at the very least delay the provision of independent technical 
assistance to Restoration Advisory Boards.
 The bill has not yet passed the Senate. It is still tied up over 
other issues, most notably the ABM treaty. Still, it is apparent that 
the RAB language will not be addressed again until it reached the 
Senate-House Conference Committee after Labor Day.

THE LANGUAGE

 The current language contains the following changes from the 
language included by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

The RAB itself is given the responsibility for demonstrating that the 
agencies and their contractors "do not have the technical expertise 
necessary for achieving the OBJECTIVE for which the technical 
assistance is to be obtained."

Though that objective is never defined, the new language adds two 
conditions which also must be met. Those might be interpreted as 
defining that objective. The conditions are:

"the technical assistance is likely to contribute to the efficiency, 
effectiveness, or timeliness of environmental restoration activities at 
the installation"

and

"the technical assistance is likely to contribute to community 
acceptance of environmental restoration activities at the installation."

Finally, the new language makes it clear that RABs can continue to 
be funded after October 1 by changing the deadline for the 
promulgation of regulations to March 1, 1996.

MY COMMENT

 As written, it is possible that the Defense Department could 
intepret the language to provide support for independent technical 
assistance to RABs, but it is not certain. It would be forced to re-
draft the proposals that it placed in the Federal Register on May 24, 
and it is unlikely that it could use this provision to provide training or 
other services on a regional or national basis.

 Furthermore, it is not clear that the $4 million included in the 
bill would be sufficient to provide technical assistance. The 
Environmental Security office, in answer to questions from Senator 
Kohl, concluded: "It is difficult to estimate precisely how much of 
the $4 million would be strictly designated for technical assistance. 
However, with 200 RABs already in existence, $4 million may not 
be enough to meet even the administrative expenses that may be 
needed to effectively operate these RABs."

 Finally, while the current effort to implement the fiscal year 
1995 Underwood-Kohl Amendment is supposed to continue until a 
new law is passed, it is unlikely that any RAB could receive any 
services under that provision before the new language is final. The 
best hope of retaining independent technical assistance is to get the 
Conference Committee to drop or clarify the Senate language. That is 
risky, however, since the House bill promises no money for RAB 
support and the Defense Department has not indicated what it will do 
in the absence of a specific allocation.

Lenny Siegel