Recently much attention has been focused on legislation that would provide direct Federal support to revitalize science, mathematics and technology

education. Congress has viewed with alarm the decline of our scientific educational system and has responded with numerous legislative proposals. House passage of H.R. 1310, the Emergency Mathematics and Science Education and Jobs Act, and the approval by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee of S. 1285, Education for Economic Security, are to be viewed as an important first stop in a renewed Federal effort and investment in future scientific growth and vitality.

S. 1194 and S. 1195 complement the initiatives contained in H.R. 1310 and S. 1285. The current crisis that confronts American colleges and univerities in adequately training the next generation of scientists, engineers and technicians will have profound implications for our nation's future economic strength and military security. The solution to our problems must include a broad array of Federal, state, local and private sector initiatives. The use of tax credits as outlined in S. 1194 and S. 1195 is an additional mechanism that the Federal government can use to bolster our lagging state of science literacy.

My statement will focus on 2 aspects of the proposed legislation: (1) the enhanced equipment donation deduction, and (2) the expansion of the R and D credit to include faculty salaries and loans to graduate students in the sciences. I wish to acknowledge and support the comments offered by James P. Olson, President of the University of Missouri, with regard to the non-incremental tax credit for university basic research.

Equipment Donation Deductions

W. Edward Lear, writing in the February 1983 Journal of Metals, noted that "During the past decade, the undergraduate laboratory equipment holdings of engineering colleges have steadily lost ground to rapid obsolesence and inflation. Today the job of restoring these laboratories to something near state of the art is one of enormous proportions."

The enormity of the situation was highlighted by a survey conducted last fall by the National Society of Professional Engineers. According to their survey the cost of modernizing engineering school laboratories to bring it up to 1971 standards, as well as accomodate the increasing undergraduate enrollments, approximates $2.2 billion; this sum is soley for instructional

needs.

At my institution, New Jersey Institute of Technology, we need a minimum of two million dollars to meet short term equipment upgrading requirements. Our plan would be to spend $400,000 a year over five years. Unfortunately, owing to budgetary constraints only $200,000 a year is available and as a result we have not been able to replace the equipment that we need.

Much of

California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo has also been unable to keep abreast of needs in laboratory equipment, maintenance and replacement. They lack technicians to maintain and repair equipment. the equipment is so old it is difficult to obtain replacements parts. cases the University has asked for, and received, donations from industry.

In some

Industry's obsolete equipment is then used in the laboratory instruction programs--though obsolete by industry standards this equipment is in most cases newer than the equipment already in the laboratories.

The list of examples of inadequate equipment at both public and independent institutions is indeed a lengthy one. Suffice it to say that the state of U.S. laboratories and the equipment our students encounter there threatens the quality of their education and ultimately our technical manpower base.

The staggering amounts necessary to remedy the equipment problem coupled with the budget crunch at the state and local levels demand a broad range of solutions rather that just one.

The use of tax deductions to promote equipment donations by corporations to colleges and universities was furthered by the passage of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. However, this legislation was narrow in scope and was limited to equipment used for research or research training in the physical and biological sciences. Dr. Olson, in his testimony, noted that this provision is beginning to have a positive impact on equipment donations to his univeristy. This is also substantiated by my experiences. At New Jersey Institute of Technology donations in FY 1980 amounted to $80,000; this year the amount is $360,000.

Further indications of the positive impact of this provision are contained in a just released report from the National Science Foundation. "An Early Assessment of Three R and D Tax Incentives Provided by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981" by NSF's Division of Policy Research and Analysis, concludes that the ERTA-81 "did in fact provide an increased incentive compared to prior law."

However, ERTA-1981 was restrictive. Equipment used for educational or teaching purposes was not included in the credit and this is an area in which the needs are staggering. S. 1194 and S. 1195 broaden the deduction to include these purposes and extend its application to educational institutions at all levels. We strongly support this expansion. We also support provisions in S. 1194 and S. 1195 that

provide comparable treatment for service contracts and for equipment needed to service technical equipment.

provide computer manufacturers with an incentive to donate equipment at the procollegiate level

We are hopeful that the prediction offerred recently by William G. Moore, Jr., President and CEO, Recognition Equipment Inc., speaking for the American Electronics Association before this Subcommittee will come to fruition. "The tax enhancements of these bills relating to scientific equipment donations for instructional use will act as incentives for manufacturers to invest capital equipment in the education and training of the U.S. technical workforce."

Engineering faculty shortages

Data from the ASEE Engineering Research Council indicates that there has been a 111 percent growth in undergraduate engineering enrollments over the last decade; this is in contrast to the mere 11% increase in engineering faculty during that same time. Indeed current estimates are that there are 2,000 engineering faculty slots vacant in our nation's engineering schools.

This sharp divergence between rising undergraduate engineering enrollments and vacant engineering faculty positions has had severe impercations for the quality of education that our engineering schools are offering. For example, data from the Engineering College Faculty Shortage Project indicates that teaching loads have increased dramatically; faculty research has been reduced; faculty has placed a greater reliance on graduate teaching assistants or part time faculty; and catologed courses in certain subjects have been cancelled.

The critical situation relating to faculty shortages, recruitment and retention is a result of the fact that few students want to continue on for the doctoral engineering degrees required to teach. Senator Bentsen, in introducing S. 1195, noted that "engineering colleges and universities cannot successfully compete for graduate engineers with private industry. They are last in the salary sweepstakes and are failing further behind each academic year." At present, B.S. graduates from engineering schools are getting annual salaries upon graduation (between $23,000 and $29,000) which exceed academic salaries of new faculty faculty with doctorate degrees (usually between $19,000 and $26,000).