87 



Mr. Studds. My first reaction is that you avoided some critical 

 areas in terms of national needs. But that is probably, at least in 

 part, a part of the difficulty you have as an interagency committee, 

 each of whose members must be watching their own area and not 

 wanting to be outranked by someone else. 



Mr. Walsh. Even this ranking was extremely contentious and 

 there are some people who would like to throttle me at the present 

 time. 



Mr. Studds. I can imagine. 



But I wonder, if we did not have that difficulty do you think a 

 purpose would be served by a greater specificity of ranking within 

 the broad categories? 



Mr. Walsh. The way the Federal Government does that kind of 

 thing is to set these broad spectrums, and then each year go with a 

 ZBB ranking. But it is very rare that you get a ZBB ranking across 

 the board. 



Mr. Studds. What kind of ranking? 



Mr. Walsh. Zero-based budgeting; I am sorry. 



Mr. Studds. I am not sure that would be desirable. You would 

 kick up a horrible fuss among people who feel they deserve to be 

 higher or lower. 



Of course, I have my own particular parochial questions of you. 

 In your high category you have oil and gas, and in your subhead- 

 ings, ranked within that category, you have A, B, and C priorities. 



In your lower priorities are discharges from drilling. That is a B, 

 and the effects of spilled oil is a C. How does one determine those 

 are B and C, as opposed to A? 



Those are on page 136 of the plan. 



Mr. Walsh. I think those rankings were judged on what we are 

 presently doing, how much money we are putting into it now, the 

 need to focus more in this area than in that area, and how much 

 capability there is in the research community. The interagency 

 team that went over this spent a good deal of time on it. 



I would guess that many of these things are changing. That is 

 why we would like to revise the plan over time. We are trying to 

 perceive what the national needs are as they evolve. Of course, the 

 national needs seen by this Congress today are a lot different than 

 what they saw 2 years ago. 



Mr. Studds. To say nothing of what they will be next year. 



Mr. Walsh. So we feel that we do take a snapshot and make 

 judgments at a certain period of time, and therefore, we would like 

 every 2 years to improve them. 



Mr. Studds. Do you, if pressed personally or officially, have any 

 substantive changes to recommend in the statute other than those 

 relatively minor ones? 



Mr. Walsh. The title. 



Mr. Studds. I was saving that for the end. 



Mr. Walsh. I think that presently the legislation is fully accept- 

 able to us, except for the change to the April 30 date. 



Mr. Studds. Does the administration have an official position as 

 to what the title ought to be? 



Mr. Walsh. No. 



Mr. Studds. Do you have one personally? 



