85 



area we will be able to tell you where the problems are and how 

 we will have to redirect ourselves. 



Mr. Studds. Do you think there is really a need to mandate that 

 this be done every 2 years? 



Mr. Walsh. I believe there is a need, simply because it is very 

 simple for people to fall back into traditional habits of taking a 

 shortcut. NOAA has had the same tendency. For example, NOAA 

 is charged with coordinating meteorology in the Federal Govern- 

 ment under an OMB order. Recently, we discovered that we and 

 other agencies had fallen asleep on how much time we put into it. 



I find that the demands of legislation are extremely helpful to 

 keep this thing at the front burner, because so many things come 

 along to make it look like it should go on the back burner. 



I find it useful to have that requirement, and to, quite frankly, 

 have the pressure from Congress. 



Mr. Studds. I am intrigued to hear you say that, because I 

 expect, with the plethora of reports that are mandated by the 

 Congress on a regular basis, that someone's eye will be caught by 

 this little innocuous bill on the floor and that person will say we 

 are just requiring another report; and are we doing anything other 

 than creating more paper, and perhaps a few more staff positions 

 to fulfill yet another essentially formal but not particularly sub- 

 stantive mandate of Congress. 



I take it you feel very strongly that is not the case? 



Mr. Walsh. No, sir. I think the critical thing is the process that 

 has been created. The process is as good a one as can be put 

 together, given the dispersion of power in the Federal Government. 



When you say reports, I think of something telling you what we 

 did last year. What we are trying to do with the plan is tell us 

 what to do next year. I think there is a critical difference. 



I don't like to file reports about what we did last year. It takes a 

 lot of time. I prefer to look into the future, and in my opinion, 

 anything that helps us look better into the future is a good report 

 if it is done right. 



Mr. Studds. In your judgment, the time that you and your asso- 

 ciates have had to devote has been time well spent, and not time 

 spinning wheels? 



Mr. Walsh. I believe so. It has completely changed the way 

 NOAA has done business in pollution. Three years ago I remember 

 when NOAA appeared before Congress, they were not sure what 

 everybody else was doing. 



We now have a group that manages all of NOAA pollution 

 programs across the board. We establish a priority ranking of new 

 funding on a coUegial basis. We do it through the senior manage- 

 ment level. 



It has rationalized NOAA's research. We can tell you what we 

 are doing and where we are going and where we want to head. 



Mr. Studds. Do you know whether other agencies are doing this? 

 How about EPA? 



Mr. Walsh. We understand that they are. It is being used by all 

 the agencies in this manner, as well by as their budget examiners. 



The Interior Department has been quite supportive of this, and 

 their programs are a very large part of it. We understand that it 

 has been very useful. 



