[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H8895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SALMON REHABILITATION IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunn). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, we have a critical issue in the West, the 
salmon rehabilitation in the Columbia River. A model has been 
developed, a computer model called the FLUSH Model. It has been 
developed and accepted for this rehabilitation plan. Because public 
policy is based on this model and public policy will be spent on this, 
using this model to rehabilitate the Columbia River, I requested the 
details on which the FLUSH Model is based. I have been trying to get 
the details, the assumptions, and all of the information upon which it 
was based.
  We are about to begin spending $200 million to $300 million of public 
money on salmon rehabilitation, but information on the FLUSH Model is 
not forthcoming. At a hearing before the Committee on Resources, I 
asked Rollie Schmitten, Director of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, about this, if he could get this information for me. He agreed 
that the Committee on Resources must have this information, but despite 
his good faith efforts, and that is Rollie
 Schmitten, Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, despite 
his good faith efforts, despite my repeated requests to several 
entities, including the Wasington and Oregon Departments of Fisheries 
and others, the Committee on Resources still does not have any details 
on the FLUSH Model. I think that is unacceptable.

  Instead, my request and the other requests have been met with delays 
and excuses, silly arguments that the model may not be usable, or it 
might be misunderstood. We obviously have a problem, and that problem 
must be solved.
  This is the problem: Sound science and peer review must be part of 
the recovery process. Let me repeat that. Sound science and peer review 
must be part of the recovery process, especially a process that costs 
hundreds of millions of dollars of public money. Public confidence is 
being undermined by the appearance that this information is being 
hidden from review. That is unacceptable.
  I still do not have a copy of this model. I believe that the 
Committee on Resources of the Congress needs and, in fact, must have 
this information for peer review before the expenditure of public 
dollars. I brought this up before the Committee on Resources today, and 
the chairman said if we do not get this in the near future we will seek 
a committee subpoena for this information.
  I just bring this to the attention of the Congress because this is 
something that must be handled in the short run, and we must get this 
information upon which public policy and expenditure of public funds is 
based.


                          ____________________