« PrécédentContinuer »
priority at OMB than I think we have seen in the past periods. The reasons for that, I don't know.
It is also possible, I would have to add, that OMB has given agencies greater discretion in where they take their cuts, has told them that they must take cuts, and has left it to the agencies to decide where to take them. In that sort of a circumstance, agencies, as a matter of general practice, tend to take their cuts in places that have the least immediate effect, even though they may have severe long-term effects.
So that an agency, if asked to take an x million dollar reduction in its budget, for example, may well reduce extensively its internal training program which, in some cases, would affect engineering.
Mr. Winn. Other than the cuts which OMB is recommending, you don't get the feeling that it is antitraining programs? They leave the decisions up to the agencies after they say you have to cut back 10 percent or 12 percent?
Mr. HAVENS. Barring evidence to the contrary, that would be my impression.
Mr. WINN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You were talking about the changes made in the guaranteed student loan program. Isn't it possible that with the changes implemented by OMB, that indeed, we will have not fewer students involved in the guaranteed student loan program, but more that truly need it? One of the changes is that in the past, your old man could make $250,000 a year and you could qualify. You can no longer do that.
I have some grave reservations whether that student really needed that assistance. Now, we are going to have money targeted to the students that really need it. One of the possibilities is that we will have more students involved. Do you agree?
Mr. HAVENS. Well, certainly, one of the possibilities is that those who receive the assistance will be more demonstrably in need of it. Whether that will affect the number of students receiving assistance or whether it will simply reallocate what is already out there in the way of assistance, whether it will affect the number of students who are actually able to attend engineering school significantly, I don't think we have a basis for judging at this point.
I think only experience will tell us what the net results of those changes are.
Mr. Dunn. The second thing. As an accountant, I would like to run an idea by you that I ran by the educators yesterday. One of the big problems is attracting students at the graduate level and keeping them there because of the salaries that they can get from industry. I believe I have a solution, and that solution revolves around the subsidies that are now given by our State universities to foreign students.
It amounts to almost $2,000 a year. Our State taxpayers are paying that subsidy. Why not up the amount of money that we charge foreign students? In my own university, Michigan State, that amounts to about $2,000 a year and entails about 200 students. If you follow the math out in that, you come up with $400,000 extra money to Michigan State.
Use that money to pay graduate fellowships. It is not a cost to the Government. It is not a cost to the State. We all benefit. There are no losers in that scenario, either. In talking to several different universities, they agree unanimously that if we up the tuition to foreign students $2,000, it would not stop them from coming to our universities, simply because of the costs already associated in getting to this country, No. 1, and because of the level of education we offer.
What's wrong with that?
Mr. HAVENS. I guess I would have to think it through in somewhat greater detail before I gave any sort of a firm response. I think there probably would be some reduction in the number of foreign students that come to this country under those circumstances because I suspect cost is a consideration to at least some of them. Whether that is good or bad
Mr. DUNN. The airplane flight over here and back from India or France is more than $2,000. It is not going to affect whether they stay for a year or not. They are being subsidized by their government. We have had a parade of witnesses and no one has offered a concrete solution. I believe that is a concrete solution that does involve the tax-doesn't cost the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. HAVENS. I'm not sure of the engineering facilities, but at least in some disciplines, foreign students that come to this country then remain and work in this country. So that if there were any effect of discouraging foreign students here, it might also affect our supply of engineers after graduation.
Mr. Dunn. Some of them, the administrators of these programs, tell me about 60 or 70 percent of these students go back to their own countries. We are subsidizing brainpower that will go back and compete with us. It makes no sense.
Mr. HAVENS. We will be happy to look at it and supply you any further thoughts we may have.
Mr. DUNN. Thank you.
Mr. FUQUA. I have one final question along the same lines of our colleague, Mr. Winn, regarding OMB. It is my understanding that OMB beginning 10 years ago, started singling out fellowship programs and student assistance programs for the budget knife rather than giving that option to the agency. Is that correct?
Mr. HAVENS. Well, I may have misunderstood Mr. Winn's question. I assumed he was referring primarily to mission agencies and fairly small programs.
Mr. FUQUA. That's what I was thinking of, mission agencies. I think of EPA, NASA, and some of the others, that after the Sputnik increase that we had, we followed for about 10 years. Then, the last 10 years, we have had this decline. Many of them, I understand, have been ordered by OMB.
Mr. HAVENS. That is quite possible. I really can't confirm or deny that. It was—at the time I was in OMB in the late 1960's and early 1970's
Mr. FUQUA. Maybe it happened while you were there. [Laughter.]
Mr. HAVENS. There were perhaps some indications of it. We had some experience at that time. Again, during both the Johnson administration and the Nixon administration we had some concerns about the proliferation of fairly small programs, each of
86-912 0 - 82 - 9
which in and of itself did not seem to be sufficient to address a significant problem.
At that point, the policy direction that we took was generally to favor broad-based programs to support education in general, what are now the student financial assistance programs, in lieu of very small, highly targeted programs that may or may not in fact lead to solving whatever problem they were addressed at.
That was the philosophy then. It may well still be the same philosophy. It is certainly consistent with events as they have occurred. But, another theory consistent with that set of events with respect to the fairly small programs in the mission agencies would be that when squeezed, this is where the agencies choose to take the cut.
I really don't think we have hard evidence one way or the other. The facts are consistent with both theories. There may well be both theories actually at work and bearing on the question.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here with us this morning and sharing your thoughts on this very important issue.
There is a rollcall vote going on. The committee is going to stand in recess for 5 or 7 minutes. We will be right back.
Our next panel of witnesses will be Dr. Frank Press, the President of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Courtland Perkins, President of the National Academy of Engineering.
[The biographical sketches of Dr. Press and Dr. Perkins follow:]
Frank Press was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1924. He received his undergraduate degree in physics from the City College of New York, and advanced degrees in geophysics from Columbia University in 1946 and 1949, when he joined the Columbia faculty, becoming associate professor in 1952, working in the areas of geophysics and oceanography. In 1955 Dr. Press was appointed professor of geophysics at the California Institute of Technology, and two years later became director of its Seismological Laboratory. He was named in 1965 as the head of the then Department of Geology and Geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which, under his leadership, expanded into planetary sciences, oceanography, interdisciplinary studies, and the joint program with the woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and was renamed the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. In 1977 he was appointed by President Carter as the President's Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In January, 1981, he returned to MIT where he was appointed Institute Professor, a title MIT reserves for scholars of special distinction. Dr. Press has been elected as the 19th President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), where he will assume his new office on July 1, 1981.
Dr. Press is recognized internationally for his pioneering contributions in geophysics, oceanography, lunar and planetary sciences, and natural resource exploration, but his primary scientific activities have been in seismology and the study of the earth's deep interior. Recognizing the importance of long-period surface waves in studying the earth's structure, he developed the theory for these waves and the instrumentation to record them. Today the analyses of seismic surface waves and free oscillations are among the most powerful techniques for studying the structure and properties of the earth's crust and deep interior. Dr. Press also saw the need to develop techniques for geophysical studies of the moon and planets, using landed observatories. Author of 160 scientific papers, he is also the co-author of the textbook Earth, widely used in courses in both American and foreign universities.
Dr. Press has been a leader in major national and international projects. He helped organize and gave impetus to the International Geophysical Year, the first coordinated worldwide attempt to measure and map various geophysical phenomena, a decade-long effort that involved international explorations of Antarctica and the oceans. Mt. Press in Antarctica is named for him. Dr. Press provided leadership in research efforts on earthquake prediction in the United States, and in international cooperation with Japan, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China.
As NAS president, Dr. Press will continue a long career of public service, in addition to his distinguished scientific work. He served on the President's Science Advisory Committee during the Kennedy Administration and on the Baker and Ramo Presidential Advisory Committee during the Ford Administration. He was appointed by President Nixon to the National Science Board, which is the policy-making body of the National Science Foundation, and he also served on the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Dr. Press participated in the bilateral science agreement negotiations with the Soviet Union, and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the nuclear test ban negotiations in Geneva and Moscow.
Major initiatives of his Washington service as OSTP Director and Science Advisor during the Carter Administration included increasing the Federal commitment to the support of basic research; the introduction of new measures to spur industrial innovation; joint research ventures involving industry, the university, and the government; and regulatory reform, particularly in improving the scientific basis of proposed regulations. Dr. Press was largely responsible for the U.S. · China scientific cooperation agreements in 1979.
Dr. Press is a member of several professional organizations, and is a former president of both the Seismological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. in 1958, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1966, and the American Philosophical Society. In 1981 he was elected as a foreign member of the French Academy of Sciences. He is the recipient of numerous honors, among which are the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Arthur L. Day Medal of the Geological Society, and the Bowie Medal of the American Geophysical Union. He was awarded the Department of the Interior's Public Service Award in 1971 and NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal in 1973. Dr. Press has received íl honorary doctoral degrees. His unique distinction lies perhaps in the dual contribution of the impact of his scientific work on the development of modern geophysics and the influence of his personal leadership in national science planning and administration.
Dr. Press is married to the former Billie Kallick of St. Louis. The Presses have two children and one grandchild.