35 



these problems and try to get at some of the social issues associ- 

 ated with the perceived us-and-them attitudes that at least exist 

 in Oregon and I am sure throughout the rest of the West, and 

 maybe nationwide. 



Ms. Furse. Thank you. 



Mr. Archie, some may argue that the types of jobs from this pro- 

 gram are just temporary, low-paying summer jobs. Can you tell me, 

 based on your own experience, what types of training and job op- 

 portunities are provided under the Corps restoration work? 



Mr. Archie. OK. Number one, what happens with the East Bay 

 Conservation Corps, we are a job training facility and we try to 

 keep a crew member around for three or four years. The way the 

 Corps is designed, one, we have an education component which en- 

 ables one to get his or her GED. That is one part of education. 



The second part, where we are actually going out and doing the 

 work we do in the creeks, the rivers and streams, restoration itself, 

 by learning the different techniques to clear water, plant vegeta- 

 tion, and things of that sort enables one to hook up with systems — 

 we have a system called Alameda County Flood Control. Our Corps 

 members usually go into internships with these people by the 

 things that we learn on the creeks. 



These are year-round jobs. They are not like a summer situation 

 at all. These are real jobs. These are real people. So, again, I want 

 to commend the passage of the bill 4289. It is definitely high on 

 our list of keeping and attaining our goals. 



Ms. Furse. Thank you. I am also held to the five-minute rule, 

 so I will quickly ask Mr. McKenzie, has there not been an empha- 

 sis shift in Public Law 566 in your view to nonstructural projects? 



Mr. McKenzie. Absolutely, there has been in the last few years, 

 as Mr. Lyons detailed a couple of minutes ago. However, in con- 

 trast to some claims by people close to the program, the structural 

 component of the program is not as inactive as they would have us 

 believe. 



For example, some of you may remember about a year ago, dur- 

 ing the new Administration's attempt to push an economic stimu- 

 lus package, this program would have received in the neighborhood 

 of $50 million for quick spending to create jobs. As a result of that 

 potential windfall of money, the local sponsors from around the 

 country pushed forward their projects that had been sitting on the 

 shelves, many of them for 20 or 25 years, waiting for funding. 



A high percentage of these projects were strictly channelization 

 and dam building projects. That, to me, indicates a strong residual 

 component of structural mentality existing in that program, which 

 I think your bill would do a lot to correct. 



Ms. Furse. Thank you. Mr. Hamburg, you have a few questions 

 for the witnesses? 



Mr. Hamburg. Thanks, just a couple of things. One question I 

 have relates to your comments, Mr. Lyons, on H.R. 4481, and I am 

 sure you have seen the two sections of the bill where it discusses 

 the composition of the task force and the composition of the council. 

 And, of course, on the task force, which will design the long-term 

 strategy, the bill sets out the short-term — at least the short-term 

 goals for the bill, but the task force is responsible for developing 

 the long-term strategy and end goals. 



