cal and skilled workers, and they will locate around community colleges in both tech schools that have that capacity.

There is one difference between your bill, S. 1194 and S. 1195, I would like to raise to your attention. And on page 11 I think it illustrates a point there. As I interpret S. 1194, you would limit the technical equipment provisions to only postsecondary institutions. We have a network of about 5,000 or 6,000 key institutions in this country that prepare people to advanced level technical skill areas, and vocational and technical education does not easily divide itself between secondary and postsecondary. There are 30 voc-tech schools in Oklahoma. If you go to Oklahoma, a third of the year it will be postsecondary; the other third in the same classroom will be secondary. In your own State of Missouri you have area vocational schools and community college both of which prepare adults in that area.

So we would hope that as the committee continues its work in this area that rather than focusing on a level of education, we would define those instructional areas where they are secondary or postsecondary, in which skills are needed, and to provide coverage to both of those particular areas, regardless of the educational level.

We do believe that this will encourage public/private cooperation. In Pennsylvania, only 1 percent of the current equipment stockpile in those institutions was donated by private institutions. We believe these two bills will encourage a kind of a horizontal focus between these institutions looking to the private sector and vice versa. The computer provisions will certainly assess us to prepare students in some of the 400 occupational areas in which we prepare students to make application of the computers in those occupational areas.

The staff provisions, particularly as it extends to the high-tech area, Mr. Chairman, you know we have a bill in this country to create booster clubs for football coaches so that we can get the best in the communities. I see the possibility of this bill to have some booster clubs for both tech booster clubs, for high tech, because you cannot hire at a $14,000 salary an advanced level electronics technician that is going to prepare high-tech people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DANFORTH. Thank you, sir. Mr. Thomson?

[The prepared written statement of Dr. Gene Bottoms follows:]

STATEMENT

OF

DR. GENE BOTTOMS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

OF THE

AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TAXATION

AND DEBT MANAGEMENT

CHAIRMAN

THE HONORABLE BOB PACKWOOD

MAY 27, 1983

I am

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am Gene Bottoms, Executive Director of the American Vocational Association. pleased to be here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 1195, the "High Technology Research and Education Development Act of 1983," which has been introduced by Senators Bentsen, Chafee, and Symms. AVA feels that S 1195 is an important piece of legislation which will encourage public-private sector cooperation in meeting serious needs that confront our nation's economy and her produc

tive capacity.

The application of advanced technology with its new equipment to the workplace is changing the knowledge and skills that workers need. As seriously, it is rendering a portion of the primary

equipment, and instructors have become out-of-date for the modern workplace and a major effort utilizing the resources of both the public and private sector will be needed to rebuild this important national infrastructure.

Advancing technology did not cause this situation by itself. The cut-back in federal support for vocational education, compounded by tightened state and local budgets have created a situation where institutions that deliver vocational-technical education in this nation (community colleges, area vocationaltechnical schools, comprehensive and general high schools) do not have the necessary resources to modernize programs, including instructors, in line with the requirements imposed by expanding technology in the workplace.

The situation presents some startling contrasts. Arthur D. Little reported that companies spent $22 billion in 1982 for automated manufacturing equipment and that figure will increase to $98 billion by 1992. However, federal expenditures in real dollars for vocational education have actually declined and state and local resources have not been able to make up the loss.

The seriousness of the problem is apparent across the nation:

O In Pennsylvania, a total of 53 percent of the tools and equipment used in vocational programs is over 10 years old.

O In New Jersey, the shortage of qualified teachers in technical areas such as computer science has meant that people with

minimal experience have been employed in some secondary

programs sometimes with few other qualifications than owning

a home microcomputer.

In Oregon, $9,764,000 is estimated as necessary merely to maintain existing equipment in secondary and postsecondary vocational-technical programs, while $33,146,000 is needed to bring programs up to industry standards.

The postsecondary area technical school at Staples, Minnesota, recently advertised nationally for a robotics instructor and obtained only five applications. With a salary of $30,000, it is difficult to compete with industry.

The Kansas Community College Association indicates that $5 million is required to upgrade its vocational programs with

state-of-the-art equipment.

O In Texas, $10 million was requested for equipment for secondary "new or redirected units" this year. $5 million was obtained for use over a 2 year period ($2.5 million per year).

A disasterous form of economizing is frequently being practiced when no other alternative seems available. It is often less expensive for institutions to continue offering outdated programs than it is to retool laboratories, staff, and equipment to meet rapidly-changing workplace needs. Consequently, a larger and larger gap is being created between the knowledge and competence required on the job and those actually possessed by individuals. This gap raises particular concern when it is translated into its effect upon the American economy and the economy's incumbent impact on our nation's people. The U.S. productivity growth rate has lagged behind foreign competition for more than a decade. Harvard economist, James Medoff, calculates that as much as 60 percent of the drop-off in productivity growth may be due to a "Labor Market Imbalance" a misfit of people to jobs. It is cri

tical that, as jobs are changed and updated with new technology, workers also receive the training and education they need to respond to these new demands and challenges. In particular, at least some workers need the advanced-level skills necessary to