have a common concern-which is how best to restore our minerals technology and education to the sound footing which is critical to our national strength and growth. We have taken different approaches to the solution of some of the problems involved. I am sure that resolution of these differences can be effected, and to this end the Department of the Interior recommends favorable consideration of H.R. 6788 or H.R. 10950 with the amendments that we have proposed.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If I remember correctly, you pointed to this problem of manpower in the field of mineral technology in the first briefing that you gave this committee when you first appeared before us.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDMONDSON. It has been a cause that you have been telling us about for quite some time and I certainly want to compliment you for your leadership on the subject and the efforts you have made to get action on this subject. You have been a real leader in the effort and I just regret personally that this subcommittee has not been as active. in meeting that need as it should have been.

It is, in a sense, our own responsibility that we are confronted with this parliamentary situation right now. I feel a personal measure of responsibility for it.

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you for the position that you have always taken in these matters and, of course, the task ahead of us is how to work out of this and get the job done.

You suggested in your statement, Mr. Secretary, that the universities' departments of mining studies have decreased from 26 to 17 in the last 7 years. Now, why has that situation developed as it has, in your opinion?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, the departments have not only been decreasing in the last few years but I also understand that there is a move afoot in the Mackay School of Mines at Reno, Nev., to consolidate it with the engineering division. There is also movement afoot, as I understand it, to consolidate the mining engineering school at the University of Washington into the engineering school.

Now, my concern for this problem, as you note, has gone back a long way and I was very pleased when we were able to obtain Dr. Osborn, who has been vice president of research at Pennsylvania State University to head up the Bureau of Mines. Dr. Osborn was also the author of the textbook-of the academy report which I referred to in my prepared statement, and inasmuch as we do have an expert in this field, and especially within the university heirarchy, I would like to refer your question of why this is happening to Dr. Osborn, because I think he could bring to us an understanding of the university attitudes better than I could.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is fine, but we also should keep in mind that the schools of mining as such existing by themselves have all gone out of existence except one. Only one is left.

Mr. DOLE. The Colorado School of Mines; yes, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. There must be some reason that the people who are interested in this industry, and also understand its relationship to the programs, can tell us why this has happened.

All right, Dr. Osborn.

Dr. OSBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to try to shed a little light on this. There are two basic factors in my opinion. One is that as Secretary Dole pointed out in his testimony, since World War II when funding of research programs at universities really got underway, the mineral engineering fields were just left out. As far as engineering aspects of mineral resources were concerned, the Department of Defense wasn't interested, the National Science Foundation had no money for it, NASA was interested in the moon but not extracting the earth's resources.

As a result the money supporting research in mineral engineering was far less than in the other fields. Without the stimulus of funds that others got, the departments on the graduate level weren't building up. The departments looked weak. This isn't attractive to students.

This is one factor. And to give you an idea of the magnitude of this, the National Science Foundation 4 or 5 years ago published a report entitled "The Dynamics of Academic Science-A Degree Profile of Academic Science and Technology and the Contributions of Federal Funds for Academic Science to Universities and Colleges"-NSF Report No. 67-6-which stated that during the past 10 or 15 years, the Federal funds going into Ph. D. programs in science and engineering averaged $1 million for each seven Ph. D.'s. That would be about $140,000 of Federal funds per Ph. D. on an average in science and engineering programs in universities.

In the case of mineral engineering, it was one-tenth of that. It was approximately $15,000 of Federal money per Ph. D. in mineral engineering.

So, although we had Ph. D. programs in mineral engineering, they were so underfunded as to be extremely weak. This means you don't build up facilities, and you just can't build up the staff. That is one point.

Mr. ASPINALL. What that really means, though, is that the universities paid no attention except for the higher funding of their various activities.

Mr. DOLE. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman. In other words, the universities tailored their courses to the source of Federal funds, and there was no funding in this area; and, furthermore, in getting the funds in the other areas of science and engineering, I feel that they were glamourizing to the point where it was attracting students, and they did have the money to do that.

Dr. OSBORN. That is a part of the picture. The other main part of the picture is that curriculums at universities are supported by the president and his staff and the board of trustees; in other words, by the school's administration, pretty largely on the basis of the number of student credit hours. So, in geology, for example, at Penn State University, 3,000 to 4,000 students a year take geology. That means the university has to pour money into a faculty and build up a strong faculty, so you have a strong department which then can attract grants and which also helps to look attractive to students.

This is similarly true of physics, and chemistry, and other fields. Now, in the case of the resources, whether it is agriculture or mineral resources, these don't have these big service courses. We don't have

thousands of students taking agriculture or taking mining engineering. We don't even have hundreds. But the only reason that agriculture is strong is because since 1887 the Federal Government has been supporting an agricultural college in each State and with matching State funds. The State funds incidentally have gone up on the average to something like a 3-to-1 State-to-Federal ratio.

So, the agricultural colleges have these strong programs. They don't always have a lot of students, but they have one college in every State, so even if you have only a few students at a college, multiply by 50 and you have got a lot of students.

In summary, because the number of student credit hours in mineral engineering is small, funding of mineral engineering programs by universities has been small. In addition, and compounding the situation, Federal support of research at universities in mineral resources has been very limited-entirely inadequate, considering the importance to the country of mineral resources. Thus, although agricultural and mineral resources are comparable fields, both needing intensive and continuing research and education programs, agricultural resources alone have received the needed support. Agricultural and mineral resources are similar except for the support that agriculture has been getting. Without that support, we wouldn't have students and research in agriculture either.

Mr. ASPINALL. Two other questions. What effect has this had upon turning out qualified mining engineers in the last several years?

Dr. OSBORN. Well, it has had a disastrous effect. The number of mining engineers has dropped from about 500 a year, say, 10 years ago, to I think it was 111 last year.

Now, the Bureau of Mines could actually use probably all of that 111, and it got practically none of them because of other demands, and incidentally, this compares with several thousand a year in the Soviet Union. So far as numbers are concerned, it is way down. As far as quality, I think it is down, too. We have not been getting the top students going into this field.

Mr. ASPINALL. Another question. Maybe you won't want to answer it, but how do you see this program that is envisioned by this legislation, as well as chapter 11 of the higher education bill, developing and progressing if it is under the control and management of HEW?

Mr. DOLE. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Interior has the knowledge of the mineral resources of this Nation much superior to that of any other department in Government. This is our responsibility. We know the areas that are weak; we know the areas that should be strengthened.

In our opinion, the proper place for the conduct of this type of legislation should be through that department which is most knowledgeable of the needs of the mineral base of the country, and that, Mr. Chairman, is the Department of Interior.

Mr. ASPINALL. If they would take and change the higher education. bill in Congress, agree to give the Department of Interior jurisdiction over this program, would this be of any benefit as far as your understanding of the administration of the program?

Mr. DOLE. Well, that, Mr. Chairman, would be a most salutary change, an amendment to the higher education bill. I repeat, however,

what I mentioned earlier. That is, that I feel that the best place for funding from the Federal Government for the minerals industry would be within the Department of the Interior and its committee in Congress that has the greatest purview over the Department of the Interior, the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

Mr. ASPINALL. What you are saying is that you want a pattern for mining, such as we have had for water resources research.

Mr. DOLE. Indeed, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is all.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Osborn, following your explanation of what has happened in the various universities with regard to mineral education, might it be a fair deduction that university presidents and university boards of trustees are disgustingly human in putting their money where they can get more Federal dollars than where it might be in the long run for the best interests of the country?

Dr. OSBORN. Well, Mr. Saylor, I think the main reason that the money has gone into these other fields, is this matter of student credit hour costs, or numbers of students. As the numbers of students run down, the president wants to eliminate the curriculum. I think this is the main thing.

Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, it is because of the drop in number. Even if the costs continue at the level of 10 years ago, the cost per student hour in this field is far in excess of the cost per student hour in any other field, isn't it?

Dr. OSBORN. Well, they just tend to go up as the number of students go down.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is right.

Dr. OSBORN. And presidents are continually pushed on costs, as you know, and none of these presidents has a background or much interest in mineral resources.

Mr. SAYLOR. May I add to that? I would say that universities are no different than private enterprise businesses in that they are concerned about the conduct of the university the best way possible and they are to be commended for this. However, what is necessary for business, what is good for business, and what is good for the universities, is not necessarily the best thing for the United States of America, and I think this is the place where government, where Congress and the executive branch, must take the broad look and determine what is best for the long-range picture of our country and act in that way.

Dr. Osborn, I have always been suspicious of the amount of Federal money that went into turning out a Ph. D., but your figures astound me and I don't doubt at all that they are correct.

Now, let me ask each of you gentlemen, the Senate bill, S. 635, took the approach of amending the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. The bills which have been introduced in the House, both bills, have taken an entirely different approach. Which one of these two approaches do you approve?

Mr. DOLE. Well, Mr. Saylor, as I mentioned in my testimony, we certainly endorse the concept and the ideas behind all the bills. I think it is entirely proper that S. 635 should be a part of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act. I think if we are to carry out the charge of the

Mining and Minerals Policy Act, we have to look at the training of our engineers. I think it is entirely proper that it should be an amendment to this particular act.

As far as trying to make a choice, with your permission, I will not do so. I will say that the Department endorses the concept behind all of them and it urges Congress to act on one of these bills.

Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, you are interested in results.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. All right. Now, one of the criticisms that was made. when the higher education bill was being considered, and this section was in it with regard to support of mining schools, was that that bill, the higher education bill, provided for support to 10 schools. Their statement was that the bills before our committee are so broad, extending it across to all 50 States, that it would be so diluted that it would not have any beneficial effect as far as the production of mining engineers and competent individuals in the field is concerned. What is your comment with regard to that?

Mr. DOLE. Well, Mr. Saylor, we have suggested and proposed amendments to both of the bills introduced within this committee by yourself and by the full committee chairman. We feel that the amount of money involved here is very large and to go at it on a crash basis of all 50 States at this time, although desirable, is perhaps not within the framework of the full total budget of the Government.

It would seem to me that we should have the opportunity to connect first those schools or those areas-by "we" I am talking about the Secretary of the Interior-to have the opportunity to select these schools and those areas where this money could best be spent.

Consequently, I would feel that the concept of these bills, which is broader than that of the title XI of the education bill would, in our opinion, be preferable.

Mr. SAYLOR. There is a provision in this bill, in the bills that you have referred to, introduced here in the House stating that it should either be one of the land-grant colleges or a school designated by the legislatures.

One of the Members came to me on the floor yesterday and said that he felt that it might be advisable to make the choice either a State land-grant college or a school selected by the Governor, the reason being that sometimes the State legislature gets involved in politics and they felt that the Governors of the respective States might be in a better position to decide than the legislators themselves.

Do you have any comment on that?

Dr. OSBORN. Mr. Saylor, our position is somewhat similar to yours as shown in this letter to the chairman. We feel that if it is left to the legislatures, some of whom don't meet annually-they meet biennially-the thing would be delayed, but furthermore if the responsibility is principally with the Secretary of the Interior who is developing the criteria which would make a school eligible, that he should make this decision.

So we would go one further step and not have the Governor do it either but have the Secretary of the Interior do it based on firmly developed criteria that would have to be met before a school could come into this.