would need 100 acres for the building and the parking facilities that would go with it. I might say that there are 400 acres up there. Senator COOPER. Thank you. Senator YOUNG. Are there any other questions? Senator COOPER. I think he made a persuasive statement. Senator YOUNG. He made a very fine statement, and we appreciate your coming. May I express our apologies for causing you to be the last witness to be heard? Senator FENWICK. That is all right, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to be before the committee, and I might say both of the Senators from Virginia concur in this statement, as far as the location of the Patent Office site is concerned. (A letter from Senator A. Willis Robertson follows:) Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. Chairman: The fine statement that has been presented to your committee by the Honorable Charles R. Fenwick of Arlington, Va., in support of a site at Langley, Va., for the proposed Patent Office Building has my full support and endorsement. That federally owned site near the CIA Building is clearly the best and most convenient location I have heard mentioned. A majority of the Patent Office employees favor the Langley site and no poll now to find out if they will move to Maryland to keep their jobs can be expected to reflect their true sentiment. In addition, a majority of attorneys whose practice takes them to the Patent Office favor the Langley site, which is more accessible to their Washington offices and homes than the one recommended by the General Services Administration. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the highway development described in one of the exhibits submitted by State Senator Fenwick will be completed before an office building can be erected and put into operation. These improvements will take care of the only objection I have heard the GSA make to the Langley site. In view of the many advantages cited by Senator Fenwick, I hope you will agree that the Langley site should be recommended for a new Patent Office Building. With every good wish, I am Sincerely yours, A. WILLIS ROBERTSON (Memo: Portion of Patent Commissioner Ladd's speech before American Patent Law Association on January 23, 1962, in Cotillion Room, Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D.C., submitted by Senator A. Willis Robertson.) The Department is not committed to a definite location for the Patent Office, and as a matter of fact is intentionally not committing itself to a definite site. I, myself, am more interested in a building than I am in its particular location, but that does not change the fact that I strongly am in favor of the Langley site and I would like to tell you why. The first reason is very simple. We are going to need a building which is constructed for our special needs and which gives us room for expansion. You have already seen from the statistics that I have given you how the Patent Office space needs have grown in the past few years. As a matter of fact, when the Department of Commerce Building was occupied for use, the north one-third of the building was allocated for Patent Office use. At that time this was deemed to be adequate space for expansion in the future. As of today, we occupy one-half the space in the Department of Commerce Building, plus the space that we have on the outside at 1801 K and on G Street. and I think that we have to assume that, while it may not grow at the same rate indeed it may grow at a faster rate-we will have to have room for expansion elsewhere. If our present-day needs were taken care of by decent standards we would have to occupy the entire Department of Commerce Building, and in the future the equipment which we will have to install, such as information retrieval systems and the production of photocopies by electronic means, would require renovations in that building which would be at least equal to the cost of a new building. The joint occupancy of the Department of Commerce with other agencies has turned out to be totally unsatisfactory and could not be expected to be any more satisfactory in the future. The reasons are simple: Every time we have to have an additional allotment of space in the Department of Commerce, it turns out to be a Federal case; it turns out to be subject to the delays which all moves of this sort are subject to; and by the time we have the space which we requested, it's time to request the next allotment of space. I want to tell you where Langley is and what it represents in terms of convenience and inconvenience to the people who work in the Office and to practitioners in Washington and to practitioners outside Washington. Langley is located about 7 miles up the Potomac River at the end of the George Washington Parkway. The site is immediately adjacent to the CIA building there. As a matter of fact, the CIA building was built on a tract which was ceded to them for that purpose from the Department of Commerce land and that leads me to the most important point on: Why Langley? The Department of Commerce presently owns a substantial tract of land at Langley on which, if appropriations were available, we would be able to begin construction immediately and, of course, I would like to have this building built and occupied not 10 or 15 years from now, but within 5 years, which would be the optimal time, assuming optimum clearances all the way through. This land is accessible from 14th and E in an average of 15 minutes, and these measurement have been taken at all times of day. The road leading from Memorial Bridge and from Key Bridge to the site, is a divided four-lane limitedaccess, no-traffic-light highway. There would be, of course, space for parking 2,500 cars for people working in the Office and people coming to do business before the Office. It will be quite close to the new circumferential highway which will run around Washington. We plotted all of our people in terms of their residence and traveling time to the present site in the Department of Commerce building. It turns out that the driving time-access time to the new building-would be 7 minutes less on the average than it is to the present building. It would drop from 39 to 32 minutes. We also checked out the residences of all the attorneys practicing before the Office in Washington and the average access time from their residences to the new site would be 26 minutes. Now, I do not intend to argue that the movement to the Langley site would not cause inconveniences. It would. While it would not be necessary in every case, no doubt some of the firms and practitioners in Washington would want to move their offices to Langley, but I contend two things: One, if these plans become definite, the actual occupancy of the building would be sufficiently distant to allow the bar to make these adjustments with the minimum of discomfort; and the second, is that, on balance, while there may be inconvenience, such a move is so much in the interest of the Patent Office that it deserves our support. I know that there are people who disagree with this view. I am not interested in maximizing or increasing the discomfort of people who have to practice before the Office at all. I assure you that in whatever I have to do in making these plans, we will take every step that we possibly can to make it as comfortable as possible. But I am convinced that this is in the best interest of the Office and for that reason I intend to continue to support the position that the Patent Office should have a new building and that it should be located at Langley. Senator YOUNG. The Chair observes it is 12:15 p.m. We have been in constant session since 10 a.m. But the Chair also observes that there are a number of interested individuals here in this room. We would like to state that any of those who desire to do so may submit their statements in writing, and those statements will be received in 96733 0-639 connection with the hearing here; but the Chair suggests if any of those seated here and it is the understanding of the Chair there are some residents of Annapolis and perhaps there are also some residents of Langley, Va., here should any of you desire to submit statements, please do so in the next few days, because there will not be much delay on the part of the subcommittee, nor on the part of the main Committee on Public Works, in considering this matter. Is there anything further? Senator COOPER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, when the various recommendations of the General Services Administration were sent to the Public Works Committee, a prospectus was included recommending the construction of an Internal Revenue Service Processing Center at Covington, Ky., and I believe at other points also. I note that in the list of projects which have been submitted to the committee the prospectus for Covington and other Internal Revenue Service processing centers have not been submitted to the committee at this particular meeting. I understand that the Secretary of the Treasury is reviewing the question of the establishment of Internal Revenue Service regions, and that involves the question of the location of various processing centers. He has not yet made that decision. I would like to ask the chairman if that is the reason why these recommendations are not being considered at this meeting. Senator YOUNG. The Chair so understands, and as soon as that matter is submitted to the chief clerk of this committee then, without much further delay, we will go ahead and program that for a hearing before the subcommittee. Senator COOPER. Thank you. Senator YOUNG. And your interest in that is so well known that you will be notified of that hearing. Senator COOPER. I thank the chairman. Senator YOUNG. The subcommittee stands adjourned. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HON. PAT MCNAMARA, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1963. Chairman, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that committee business prevented me from appearing before your committee last week when you were considering the proposal to locate the Patent Office in Anne Arundel County, Md. It is my understanding that officials of the Patent Office favor this site and that an individual from Annapolis is willing to donate the land required for construction of this new headquarters. It seems to me that this is a very generous offer, which will result in great savings to the taxpayers and for this reason I am wholeheartedly in favor of locating the Patent Office in Anne Arundel County. I realize that your committee hearings have already been completed, but I will appreciate it if this letter can be made part of the record. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this proposal, and with warmest personal regard, I am, Sincerely, SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG, FAIRFAX COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, DEAR SENATOR YOUNG: Much to our regret we were unaware of the hearing held on March 20 by your subcommittee concerning relocation of the Patent Office and thereby were unable to present facts which we believe merit your serious consideration since they bear directly on both public and private economy as well as on the efficient operation of this public service. The directors of the county chamber gave much consideration to the subject early in 1962 and by resolution extended a cordial invitation to Secretary Hodges and Commissioner Ladd to relocate on the Department of Commerce property adjacent to the CIA site at Langley, Va. This welcome was reaffirmed by resolution 2 weeks ago which added available sites between Dulles Airport and the CIA site should the latter prove unsatisfactory. Repeating briefly the advantages of the Fairfax County sites, your attention is respectfully called to: 1. The Langley site is Federal property immediately available and of ample acreage with all services available. 2. The location is unsurpassed in the Metropolitan Washington area since it lies between Dulles International Airport and the District, adjacent to the Capitol Beltway and George Washington Parkway as well as the Airport Access Road. Cabin John Bridge on the beltway and Route 123 (to be four lanes) to Chain Bridge offer immediate access to Montgomery County and Northwest Washington where the bulk of employees and clients live. The parkway to National Airport and downtown Washington requires but 15 minutes driving time to these areas. 3. The location has superior esthetic advantages while being adjacent to a residential area of high standards. 4. It is close to the rapidly developing community of research firms and modern office buildings at Tysons Corner, the commercial hub of northern Fairfax County. 5. Governor Harrison, the Virginia delegation in Congress, the governing body of Fairfax County, the business and professional community, and the majority of residents of Fairfax County have extended a warm invitation to this facility. This is further evidenced by the offer of other highly advantageous sites along the corridor from Dulles Airport to the Capitol Beltway. It is requested that your committee give full consideration to the Langley, Va., site for the U.S. Patent Office. Respectfully, Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG, R. W. GROW, (For the Board of Directors). GENERAL MOTORS CORP., WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE PATENT SECTION, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1963. Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Having been in attendance at your committee hearing on March 20, 1963, I should like to take this opportunity to express my personal views with respect to relocating the Patent Office. First, the need for a new building is evident. Second, it is unnecessary to move a distance of forty miles when a desirable site is available within a distance of fifteen miles in any direction from downtown Washington. Third, priority of this building under the Year 2000 Plan is inconsistent with its urgent need. If I may be of any assistance in this matter, please advise. Very truly yours, CHARLES R. ENGLE, Registered Patent Attorney, District of Columbia Bar, MARCH 20, 1963. DEAR SIR: The proposed relocation of the Patent Office is of great interest to me since my husband is a patent examiner. We have just returned to Washington after 3 years' absence, and the fact that the Patent Office is in the city was a major factor in our decision. At first glance I have difficulty seeing why the Patent Office must move out of town rather than some other agency--such as the CAB for instance. But if it it must, then please may I vote in favor of the Langley site. Besides the fact that this site is already owned by the Commerce Department, and thus cheaper, it also has public transportation facilities and is close enough to town for people to be not too far from work, and yet within reach of Washington's cultural and social activities. Most of the patent families I know live in northern Virginia or in Montgomery County, both within easy distance of Langley. Both locations have good schools for the children and good shopping for the family. They also have a variety of homes in wide price ranges. This is vital to me, since I expect to buy a house next year, and frankly, the idea of moving near Annapolis is catastrophic. I have just spent 3 years in a small town in the middle of Michigan, and want no part of this country setup any more. I enjoy taking my daughter to the zoo, to the Smithsonian, etc., and my husband and I have a lot of concerts and shows to catch up on. Like us, many patent examiners have their friends and families in town. How often would we see them if we lived near Annapolis? After being away we do appreciate friendships even more than before. I feel very inadequate at putting down my feelings, which are strong enough to cause me to write this, my first letter to a Member of Congress. Had I known hearings were to be held, I would have liked to testify. Please take into consideration my letter; I know that many other wives are just as upset as I am at the prospect of the dislocation a move to Howard or Anne Arundel County would entail. We feel Langley would be much better. At least, it's in a nice area close enough to town. Thank you for your consideration. THERESE J. ROSEN. SENATE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. STATE OF MARYLAND, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, DEAR SIRS: I wish to take this means to recommend that Anne Arundel County, Md., be selected as the site for the proposed multimillion-dollar U.S. Patent Office. Anne Arundel County lies in the center of the golden triangle of Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis, with a network of high-speed, nonaccess arterial highways making it approximately 30 minutes from the Nation's Capital. If the Patent Office were to be located in Anne Arundel County, it would be easily accessible to the many thousands of patent attorneys and the staff and employees of that division of government who now reside in the Washington area. The Maryland and Washington, D.C. area is fast becoming an electronic capital of the Nation, with many new industries locating in this area, and it would be most advantageous to have the Patent Office located in this vicinity. Our office would be very happy to cooperate with you, the Patent Office, the General Services Administration, and other interested parties, in the event we can furnish any additional information. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am, LOUIS L. GOLDSTEIN. THE ANNAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., Senator STEPHEN M. YOUNG, New Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C. Annapolis, Md., March 21, 1963. DEAR SENATOR YOUNG: Enclosed find a resolution passed by the chamber of commerce board of directors pointing out the need and desirability of the Patent Office locating here. |