As you can see from the photographs, federal laboratories are experiencing 

 many common problems associated with aging facilities — leaking roofs, gut- 

 ters, drafty window frames, inefficient ventilation systems that do not bring 

 sufficient air into the laboratories, and overcrowded and limited work space. 



In particular, DOE and EPA and NASA have cited deteriorating labora- 

 tory facilities as material management weaknesses in their financial integrity 

 reports. 



Many older federal laboratories are indeed obsolete. They were not de- 

 signed to meet today's health and safety standards and advanced R&D needs. 

 Many laboratory buildings do not have, for instance, sprinkler or alarm sys- 

 tems. Similarly, computers and other electronic equipment have increased 

 the demand for electric power, with labs experiencing as many as 20 to 30 

 power outages per year; while sensitive scientific instruments have increased 

 the importance of controlling the temperature, the humidity, and the air qual- 

 ity, which many of these laboratories are unable to do. 



We found that laboratories have generally avoided a prolonged shutdown 

 of R&D projects by successfully engineering around emergencies. 



If I may, in terms of Yankee ingenuity that we saw, Mr. Chairman, you re- 

 ferred to the example at Wright Lab Air Force Laboratory where a leaking 

 roof required some ingenuity in terms of building the second building around 

 equipment — complete with gutters — so that would give you some indications 

 of the quantity of rainwater that was actually entering the laboratory. 



There's no doubt that the aging facilities have reduced scientific productiv- 

 ity. Typical problems include reporting ventilation systems that do not meet 

 industry standards for circulating air, which have caused even respiratory 

 problems among the scientific researchers, and/or contaminated laboratory 

 samples that have to be redone and experiments redone, as well as electrical 

 power outages. 



As a point of reference, the National Research Council's Building Research 

 Board has found that maintenance and repair underfunding is widespread, 

 and it's a persistent problem across the Nation. 



The Board believes that an appropriate budget allocation for routine main- 

 tenance and repair will typically run in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the ag- 

 gregate current replacement value for the buildings. 



Today, funding constraints, however, have limited some agencies' ability to 

 repair and upgrade their laboratory facilities. 



In FY 1992, only ARS and NASA were able to meet the minimum guide- 

 line of 2 percent for maintenance and repair. Most agencies reported to us 

 that they're spending about 1 percent or less. 



The eight agencies, as you referred to in your opening statement, also re- 

 ported a total backlog of around $4 billion in needed repairs at their particular 

 laboratories. 



While some money is in fact being made available through the appropria- 

 tion process, in response to budget constraints, the end of the Cold War, and 

 a concern for efficiency, several federal agencies should get credit for having 

 considered alternatives to realign or consolidate their laboratory facilities. 



For example, DOD is in fact reducing the combined number of laborato- 

 ries. Similarly, USDA is studying whether to consolidate some of ARS's 111 

 laboratories. DOE, for instance, is also considering how to realign its nucioar 



