government, industry, and the educational through tax ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT We believe the federal government cannot force technological leadership. Government can, however, foster it through a strong national commitment to basic research and the creation of an educational system which provides for the education and training of adequate numbers of engineering and scientific human capital. We are pleased to have the opportunity to express our strong support for S.1194 and S.1195. These bills constitute examples of cornerstone legislation that will help restore this country's technological and economic leadership. We support the underlying principal of this legislation--government-industry partnerships-which provides our schools and colleges with a financial multiple of the benefits which could be expected from a direct expenditure of the same amount of public funds. Furthermore, it does so with a minimum of the overhead and bureaucratic costs involved in federal grant programs. When we consider the procurement systems that would be needed to locate, purchase and place appropriate equipment, software and services as well as to establish R&D programs and faculty/student awards, it is obvious to us that the tax incentive approach in your bill is much simpler and efficient. We commend Senators Danforth, Bentsen, and Chafee for their introduction of these bills and will work actively in support of their passage. REFERENCES 1"Western Technical Manpower Council Report," Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1983. 2"Annual Summary of R&D Expenditures," 1982, McGraw-Hill. Mike Brennan, "Urge Tax Support." Electronic Buyers News, March 14, 1983, p. 6. 3Ibid. 4"Technical Employment Projects: 1983-1987 Report." The American Electronics Association, Palo Alto, California, 1983. 5"Engineering Education Problems: The Laboratory Equipment Factor." National Society of Professional Engineers, Washington, D.C., September 1982. 6"A Nation at Risk." Members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, Washington, D.C., 1983. 7" Can the Schools Be Saved?" Newsweek, May 9, 1953, p. 50. fornia and the Nation." California Commission on Industrial 9Ronald Kotulak, "Crisis: Heading for Scientific Illiteracy." Chicago Tribune, February 2, 1982. 10" Tech Invaders: School Survival Shifts to Center Screen." Christian Science Monitor, April 15, 1983, p. B1. 11"Instructional Use of Computers in Public Schools." National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, September 1982, p. 4 Table 2. 12Ibid., p. 2. 131bid., p. 11. 14Burt Schorr, "Many Schools Buying Computers Find Problem with Using Them." Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1983, p. 27. 15Sally Reed, "Bringing Technology Into the Classroom." World, April 1983. This *** ** 815 FACILITIES REPORTING INCLUDES CATEGORIES NOT LISTED ABOVE CALCULATIONS BASED ON RESPONDENTS WHO PROJECTED FOR ALL 5 YEARS *** 815 FACILITIES REPORTING INCLUDES CATEGORIES NOT LISTED ABOVE CALCULATIONS BASED ON RESPONDENTS WHO PROJECTED FOR ALL 5 YEARS 1) EE projections are based on annual growth rate of 10.6% from 1983-87. CS projections are based on 16.5%. Data comes from 815 electronics facilities with combined annual sales of $568 and total employment of 736,000. Based on these sales and employment figures, AEA data reflects about 30% of the entire industry. Projections, therefore, are presented for the entire industry. 2) 16% of the industry projections are based on successful awarding of defense contracts. Therefore demand projections have also been reduced by 16% based on a conservative scenario that no anticipated defense contracts will be awarded. METHODOLOGY TO COMPUTE SUPPLY 1) Projections of BS/EE degrees are based on National Center for Education Statistics, 3) Projections reflect 80.2% of entire BS/EE and BS/CS grads, since NSF estimates that |