The County Board of Supervisors for Fairfax and the Fairfax County Planning Staff, the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce, and the Northern Virginia Builders Association, and the McLean Business & Professional Association, have indicated approval of the location of the Patent Office at Langley.

It is submitted in view of the foregoing advantages of the Langley site, it should be selected for the site of the Patent Office, and, if necessary, Congress should make this designation rather than select some site 25 to 30 miles away, where land must be bought by the Federal Government or taken off the tax rolls, in any case, thus depriving the locality of this revenue.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to file with the committee as exhibits a copy of the law which was enacted by the 1962 session of the general assembly, which would permit those people, regardless of where they are now practicing law, to perform those duties required by the Patent Office should it be located in Virginia.

Senator YOUNG. The exhibits of the Senator will be received and made a part of the record of the committee, and any exhibits you offer will be made a part of the record.

Senator FENWICK. Thank you, sir.

(The exhibit referred to, entitled "Senate Bill No. 276," is as follows:)

SENATE BILL No. 276

Offered February 19, 1962

A BILL to authorize attorneys recognized to practice before the U.S. Patent Office in patent or trademark cases to practice patent or trademark law in Virginia so long as the U.S. Patent Office, or any part thereof, is located in Virigina, without being licensed as attorneys at law in Virginia, under certain conditions; to define such practice; and to require a license of and impose a license tax upon any such attorney who maintains an office in this State.

Patrons Messrs. Fenwick, Stone, Bateman, Spong, Perrow, Hutcheson, Breeden, McCue, Wilson, Marsh, Carter, Collins, Purcell, Long, Ames and Landreth

Referred to the Committee for Courts of Justice

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia :

1. §1. So long as the U.S. Patent Office or any part or division thereof is located in Virginia, as attorney recognized to practice before the U.S. Patent Office in patent or trademark cases shall be authorized to practice patent or trademark law in Virginia without being licensed or authorized as an attorney at law in Virginia by the Superme Court of Appeals or by the State Board of Bar Examiners, and without becoming a member of the Virginia State Bar.

§ 2. For the purposes of this act "an attorney recognized to practice before the U.S. Patent Office in patent or trademark cases" is defined as any one who is duly authorized to practice law in any state or territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and who also is entitled under the rules of the U.S. Patent Office to represent another in a patent or a trademark case; and to "practice patent or trademark law” is defined to mean to perform all necessary professional services with respect to patent or trademark matters, concerning which being recognized to practice before the U.S. Patent Office for the performance of such services is required, and includes the preparation and filing of copyright applications and assignments thereof in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. §3. This act shall not be construed to authorize an attorney recognized for practice before the U.S. Patent Office in patent or trademark cases to appear

in any court or in any tribunal other than the tribunals of the Patent Office, nor to hold himself out as authorized to practice law generally in Virginia.

§ 4. The commissioners of revenue are authorized, upon the payment of a revenue license fee of fifteen dollars per annum, to issue a revenue license to any attorney recognized for practice before the U.S. Patent Office in patent or trademark cases maintaining an office or place of business in this State, which license shall entitle the holder thereof to practice patent or trademark law only as defined in this act. A separate license shall be required for each person so practicing patent or trademark law, and such license shall not be prorated. Provided, however, that no additional State revenue license shall be required of any person to practice patent or trademark law if such person is regularly licensed in Virginia as an attorney at law.

Mr. FENWICK. I would like to file with the committee a letter from the Governor of Virginia, directed to the Honorable Luther H. Hodges, dated February 5, 1962, urging and inviting the Patent Office to locate on the Virginia territory near the CIA.

Senator YOUNG. All right. That will be received.

(The letter dated February 5, 1962, from Governor Harrison, is as follows:)

Hon. LUTHER H. HODGES,
Secretary of Commerce,

Commerce Building, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 5, 1962.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It has come to my attention that the Patent Office will probably be removed from the Commerce Building and located in its own building at a new location. I am further informed that among sites being considered is one in Virginia adjacent to the present CIA building.

The Commonwealth of Virginia would welcome within its borders an old line agency such as the Patent Office, and as its chief executive, I assure you of my fullest cooperation in obtaining this objective.

Please be assured that my office is at your disposal in this connection.

Sincerely yours,

A. S. HARRISON, Jr.

Senator FENWICK. I would also like to put in evidence a letter from the Governor which indicated he would give top priority to the improvement of Route 123, should it be located at that point. Senator YOUNG. That will be received also.

(The letter dated April 12, 1962, from Governor Harrison is as follows:)

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

GOVERNORS OFFICE, Richmond, April 12, 1962.

Hon. CHARLES R. FENWICK,
Arlington, Va.

DEAR CHARLIE: Pursuant to your inquiry as to the plans of the State to improve Route 123 from Chain Bridge to its intersection with George Washington Parkway (1.1 miles) you are advised as follows:

According to information furnished by the highway department plans for the widening and improvement of this particular stretch of road have been in existence for some time, however, I am advised that the plans for this particular 1.1 miles were suspended in the interest of more urgent needs and in order to determine what effect the parkway would have on relieving conditions from the parkway to Chain Bridge. I am now advised that the present traffic count on the two lanes from the parkway to the bridge is approximately 11,000 vehicles per day which, of itself, renders the existing 30 foot right-of-way and 18 foot of pavement inadequate.

Under these circumstances, should any major development occur which would result in appreciable additional traffic on the 1.1-mile strip, such as the proposed moving of the Patent Office to the CIA site, I would hope that measures would be taken as soon as possible by the highway department to widen and improve the 1.1-mile strip.

I trust that this answers your inquiry.

Sincerely yours,

ALBERTIS.

Senator FENWICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file with the committee a photostatic copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, welcoming the Patent Office to that site at Langley.

Senator YOUNG. That will be received.

(The resolution of the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va., dated November 7, 1962, is as follows:)

At a regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va., held in the board room in the county office building at Fairfax, Va., on Wednesday, November 7, 1962, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas the Secretary of Commerce has suggested at Senate hearings that a new and separate building for the Patent Office is under consideration; and Whereas the Secretary of Commerce is desirous that the Patent Office and its services be closely associated with industrial development and business; and Whereas it is planned that the new building to house the Patent Office will be equipped with computers and other electronic devices to expeditiously provide industry with information as to the state of development in various industrial fields so that expansion in those fields may be encouraged; and

Whereas the location of the Patent Office in a building so designed and equipped will attract industry and be of great benefit to the Fairfax-northern Virginia area; and

Whereas the Department of Commerce now owns some 400 acres in the vicinity of Langley, Va., and the location of the Patent Office there would not necessitate the acquisition of additional land depriving the county of taxable property; and Whereas the Patent Office is one of the old-line agencies whose 2,500 employees are largely scientists, engineers, and lawyers, having a payroll of over $20 million a year; and

Whereas the location of the Patent Office on the Langley site would attract not only industry, but also the construction of many fine homes by persons engaged in practice before the Patent Office: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors welcome the Patent Office to Virginia, and urge that it be located on the property now owned by the Commerce Department at Langley, Va.; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Honorable Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of Commerce, to Senator Harry F. Byrd, to Senator A. Willis Robertson and to Congressman Joel T. Broyhill. A copy-Teste:

EDNA A. BICKSLER,
Clerk of said Board.

Senator FENWICK. That concludes my presentation.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Fenwick is as follows :)

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. FENWICK

The question may well be asked: "Why move the Patent Office 35 miles from its present site?" This question is particularly pertinent when some 400 acres of land adjacent the CIA is owned by the Department of Commerce, is about 7 miles from downtown Washington, adjacent the new Cabin John Bridge, is accessible from downtown Washington on an average of 20 to 25 minutes, and is quite close to the new circumferential highway and the Dulles Airport.

It should be borne in mind that the use of the Langley site will cost the Government nothing for additional land, will take no land off the tax rolls of Fairfax County, and is by far the most convenient location mentioned.

The

Some question has been raised concerning the location of the Patent Office at Langley being in conflict with the Year 2000 Plan. This is contrary to the facts. Beginning on page 34 and ending on page 47, there are five possible plans submitted. On each, the CIA site is shown by a black dot as a subcenter. recommended plan is on pages 46 and 47, where once again the CIA site is shown as a subcenter. A reading of the text defines subcenter as a smaller "new city" and a center of population, commercial activity, and employment. The placing of the Patent Office adjacent the CIA would simply add population, and in no sense do violence to the Year 2000 Plan.

The location of the Patent Office on the Langley site has the overwhelming approval of the employees of the Patent Office, and a survey shows that as applied to the present personnel in the Patent Office, driving time to the proposed new Langley site would be 7 minutes less on the average than it is to the present building. It would drop from 39 minutes to 32. The average driving time for attorneys practicing before the Patent Office who reside in the Washington area shows 26 minutes from their residences to the new site. There are currently 25 buses scheduled each day to Langley, which undoubtedly would increase with demand.

It must be remembered that even if the money was appropriated by the present Congress, it would be 4 or 5 years before the building would be completed.

The opening of the Cabin John Bridge and the extension of the George Washington Parkway on the Virginia side of the river has materially improved traffic circulation. Fully as significant, however, is the extension of the George Washington Parkway up the Maryland side of the river to the Capital Beltway. This is under construction and will mean that people from northwest Washington can get on the Maryland side of the Parkway, cross over John Cabin Bridge to the Patent Office without using the existing bridges or adding to the congestion of Chain Bridge.

The construction and opening of the McLean bypass has materially alleviated traffic congestion in that area. Even greater relief is in prospect when Route 66 is completed so that people in the McLean area and elsewhere can use the Beltway without going into McLean and Langley. The opening of the Roosevelt Bridge will permit the George Washington Parkway traffic to flow into Washington at a much greater rate than is now the case.

The Governor has stated that if the Patent Office is located at Langley he will recommend top priority for the widening of Route 123 from Chain Bridge to the parkway to four lanes.

The new Patent Office building must be especially designed for computers and electronic equipment, and will require approximately 2 million square feet and parking space for 2,400 automobiles. The Government-owned land at Langley is adequate in every way for such a building and required parking.

It is highly desirable that there be as little impact as possible on present personnel in the Patent Office and those practicing before it. Personnel of the Patent Office, who are mostly engineers, scientists, and lawyers, if lost to the Patent Office because of a major move, would cripple this most important branch of Government. Moving the Patent Office a substantial distance away could very easily cause these highly skilled people to leave the Government; and it would also seriously disrupt the livelihood of many attorneys specializing in patent law.

In order to lessen this impact, the Legislature of Virginia in its 1962 session authorized those who were qualified to practice before the Patent Office to continue such practice should the Patent Office be moved to Virginia.

The County Board of Supervisors for Fairfax, the Fairfax County Planning staff, Fairfax Chamber of Commerce, Northern Virginia Builders Association, and McLean Business and Professional Association have indicated approval of the location of the Patent Office at Langley.

It is submitted that in view of the foregoing advantages of the Langley site, it should be selected for the site of the Patent Office, and, if necessary, Congress should make this designation rather than select some site 25 or 30 miles away where land must be bought by the Federal Government and taken off the tax rolls, thus depriving the locality of this revenue. Respectfully.

CHARLES R. FENWICK.

TRAFFIC PATTERN LANGLEY SITE NEXT 5 YEARS

The Patent Office on the Bureau of Public Roads tract at Langley, Va., will by the time its buildings are completed, be in the middle of the finest, most up-to-date highway network in the whole metropolitan area. The following facilities will then be in use or substantially completed.

1. The Capital Beltway and the Cabin John Bridge, both now in use and already relieving congestion in McLean and on Chain Bridge.

2. Route 123 as a four-lane road from this site to Chain Bridge. Governor Harrison has pledged this project the highest priority if the Patent Office comes to Langley.

3. Route 123 southward from this site to Tyson's Corner is now a four-lane road, recently opened and know as Dolly Madison Boulevard.

4. The George Washington Parkway, bounding the Public Roads tract on the north, is now open as a four-lane road from the area of the new Roosevelt Bridge, Memorial Bridge, and Key Bridge westward to the Capital Beltway and the Cabin John Bridge.

5. The Maryland counterpart of the George Washington Parkway now under construction eastward from the Capital Beltway at the Cabin John Bridge to tie into the District of Columbia street and expressway system between Chain Bridge and Key Bridge. This construction, with that in Virginia, will provide on the two sides of the Potomac a total of eight lanes, creating a wholly new traffic corridor.)

6. Route 193, westward from the Bureau of Public Roads tract to the Capital Beltway, will be four lanes, as it is now in the current 5-year plan of the Virginia Department of Highways for improvement.

7. Interstate Route 66, passing only a few miles south of McLean will not only provide access for the McLean area but will siphon off much of the through traffic now using Route 123 past the Public Roads tract and eastward to Chain Bridge.

8. The Dulles Airport Access Road, now built to four lanes and in use from the south side of McLean westward to Dulles Airport. This road will be extended eastward to join Interstate Route 66, southeast of McLean. The Dulles Airport traffic now using Route 123 and the George Washington Parkway undoubtedly will switch over to Route 66 and enter Washington over the new Roosevelt Bridge. Mention must also be made of the improving situation in the bridge crossings of the Potomac River that will benefit this site. They are:

1. The new Cabin John Bridge on the Capital Beltway a short distance west of the Public Roads tract has just opened and is proving a tremendous convenience to the people of northwest Washington, Virginia, and Maryland.

2. The Roosevelt Bridge, at the end of Constitution Avenue, is well along in construction and will be open long before the Patent Office Building can be completed and put into use.

3. The Three Sisters Bridge, construction of which now seems both possible and probable through the emerging agreement between the National Park Service and the District of Columbia, on a basis that promises to preserve the GloverArchbold Park on the one hand and to provide the District important traffic relief on the other.

In considering the remarkable network of roads that now exists or will be provided for the Patent Office should it locate on the Bureau of Public Roads tract at Langley, one must bear in mind that the utility of these roads will be greater here than for a similar governmental facility located downtown. The reason for this increased utility for the Langley location is that in that area the traffic peak occurs on the inbound lanes on most of the roads in the morning and on the outbound lanes on most of the roads in the evening. Thus traffic to the Patent Office, particularly that of its employees living in the District, will be mainly on the lightly used outbound lanes in the morning and the lightly used inbound lanes in the evening. This counterflow of traffic will permit better use of the highway system and will drastically lessen the impact on the community. In summary, it may be said that the highway network that will be available to the Patent Office should it be located on the Bureau of Public Roads tract at Langley, will be more than adequate to meet the demands upon it. This network of highways will be unsurpassed anywhere else in the metropolitan area, and will confer upon the Patent Office, its employees, all who have occasion to appear before it or use its facilities, and the general public a convenience of location that will enable it to perform its function and discharge its responsibilities in a way not heretofore possible.

CHARLES R. FENWICK.

Senator YOUNG. Any questions, Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. Has any estimate been made of the acreage that would be required to construct the Patent Office, with parking space and all the other facilities required, if it should be located at Langley? Senator FENWICK. Senator Cooper, the Patent Office indicated they