Senator COOPER. Adhering to that purpose, the funds which are made available by the Congress, of course, are increased by the amounts which the local communities make available?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes, sir, we are getting 2 for 1.

Senator COOPER. To give you an example, in the case of construction of sewage facilities, water facilities, courthouses, even local public buildings and facilities, generally the community either by the issuance of bonds or other methods, bears its part of the cost of the program?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Then I take it that to finance the regular program of a Government agency, such as the program submitted by the GSA today for the small public buildings, would not achieve the purposes outlined in the reports of the Appropriations Committee and the Public Works Committee last year. To a degree it would not.

But, to a degree it would, but it would not achieve the full expenditure of funds that you would have everywhere the local community contributed to the Federal funds?

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Well, we feel that certainly the grant-in-aid programs are highly effective under the act.

We are, however, under instructions of the Congress, and we feel it was the intent of the Congress, that some direct Federal projects be included as well.

This is why a quarter of the program is going into such things asSenator COOPER. Well, but another purpose of the act was to enable communities to provide facilities which it otherwise could not

have

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes, indeed.

Senator COOPER (continuing). That it could not, under existing law, meet the requirements, say, of a sewage system or a water system, but it could do so under the Emergency Public Works Act.

Mr. SOUTHWICK. That is correct. These are projects that would not otherwise be built at this time.

Senator COOPER. That is the reason I raised this question. I recognize that there is some regular program under Federal Government to provide work quickly and, therefore, your agency could approve some of those projects.

But on the Committee on Appropriations, and not just Public Works, I know it is clear that the purpose of the Emergency Public Works Act was to secure the largest expenditure of funds by local communities and also to provide facilities, local facilities, that are not under Federal Government programs and which could quickly be developed.

That is the reason I raised the question about the use of that fund for construction of post offices and buildings like that.

Senator YOUNG. Senator Bayh, do you have any questions?
Senator BAYH. One, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

It is my understanding, from the last paragraph there and according to Senator Cooper's discussion with you, that if these funds are received or must go to the accelerated public works program to finance these, that they will be thrown in the hat, so to speak, and will be considered in line with the other requirements, with the sewage projects, and the other ones that were mentioned, so that-

Mr. SOUTHWICK. Yes.

Senator BAYH (continuing). So that the priority would be lumped. in with everything else. Is that

Mr. SOUTHWICK. That is essentially correct. Yes, sir. Primarily, they would be competing with other Federal projects.

It is our proposal to the appropriations committees that we be permitted to allocate about 80 percent of the supplemental appropriation for the matching type of program that Senator Cooper was talking about, and the other 20 percent would be for direct Federal projects.

Senator YOUNG. Have you any other questions?

Senator Nelson, have you any questions?

Thank you very much for your statement.

The Chair announces that Senator Glenn Beall of Maryland is necessarily absent this morning on official business. He requests permission, which is granted, of course, to file a statement for the record, recommending, the Chair suspects, that the U.S. Patent Office proposal be adopted, and that the Patent Office be located in Annapolis. His statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Senator Beall of Maryland is as follows:)

Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG,

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, March 20, 1963.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds,
Senate Public Works Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that a previous commitment made it impossible for me to appear personally before your subcommittee this morning with respect to the relocation of the Patent Office. I am taking this opportunity to express my views on this matter and respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record.

I am thoroughly convinced that the need for a new Patent Office Building is acute and demands immediate action by Congress. I fully endorse the views of Commissioner David L. Ladd in this regard and hope that your subcommittee will give swift approval to the request for a new building.

A second question before your subcommittee relates to the location of the new building. It is my sincere hope that the subcommittee will look favorably upon a location in Anne Arundel County, Md. In choosing a site I know you will want to give special consideration to the accessibility of the new building both to employees and members of the patent bar. Anne Arundel County may be reached by means of two modern highways which will permit employees to avoid the traffic jams prevalent in the District of Columbia. Although traveling distance may be increased, the actual time of commuting, in many cases, will be reduced.

In selecting a site for the Patent Office your committee has an opportunity to make a unique contribution to the solution of the transportation problems of the District of Columbia. As more and more Federal buildings are located in or near the center of the city, transportation problems will increase. We are already faced with the need for a complex mass transportation system in the District of Columbia and its environs. We should avoid locating additional Federal buildings in the immediate metropolitan area, which will aggravate this need. Your subcommittee, by selecting a location such as Anne Arundel County, will help to relieve a portion of this problem. Adoption of a similar policy with respect to other new Federal buildings should also be seriously considered by your committee.

In addition to providing easy access from the District of Columbia, Anne Arundel County is convenient to members of the patent bar who travel from other States. Friendship International Airport is located in the county and is but a short drive from Annapolis.

Of no small importance is the eagerness of the county to welcome a new Patent Office Building. The county commissioners of Anne Arundel County, the mayor of Annapolis, and the chamber of commerce are prepared to cooperate fully in the relocation of the Patent Office.

I urge your committee to give favorable consideration to locating the new Patent Office in Anne Arundel County.

With all good wishes, I am.
Sincerely yours,

J. GLENN BEALL

Senator YOUNG. The Chair also announces that due to the necessary absence on official business of two or three members of this subcommittee that this subcommittee will not go into executive session immediately after this public hearing, but the members necessarily absent, those Senators necessarily absent, will be fully informed of the proceedings here. Then this subcommittee will reconvene again at a later date, without any delay whatever, either later this week or not later than next Monday, and proceed to consider the matters submitted to us.

It is contemplated at this time that we shall remain in session this morning and hear the testimony of all those witnesses who desire to testify.

Mr. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents.

I believe you are accompanied by Dr. William W. Eaton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology in the Department of Commerce.

Proceed with your statement, sir.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. LADD, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. WILLIAM W. EATON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. LADD. Mr. Chairman, when we were notified that we would be asked to accompany Mr. Knott at this hearing here today, it was my understanding that we would be here more or less on a standby basis. I am prepared to answer questions of the committee in relation to the need for this building, and I do have a statement which is now being circulated to the members of the subcommittee. However, in the light of the questions which were asked of Mr. Knott, and the answers which he gave, I would ask the indulgence of the committee to read this 15-page, double-spaced statement, with some appendixes for illustration, and to touch on the need for the building and the location of the building and the reaction of the bar to our proposal for a new Patent Office Building.

The thesis that I will argue will be very simple; namely, that the need is overwhelming, and, as much as I or others might desire particular locations, that the imperative need is for the construction of a new facility, and that the alternative of locating it in the area indicated in the prospectus is acceptable. I hope to indicate it is acceptable not only to the Patent Office and to the Department of Commerce but the Bureau of the Budget and the General Services Administration, as well as to sizable segments of the bar as well.

Generally, Mr. Chairman, when I appear before committees to give testimony, I try to keep the testimony as dispassionate as pos

sible. However, in this case I do not intend to be dispassionate. I plead with this committee to give us this building because it is indispensable to the improvement of the services and activities of the Patent Office.

Now if I may, I should like to turn to the prepared statement. There are appendixes which are mentioned by number in the statement, and which can, therefore, be followed by members of the committee.

During 1962 all operations of the Patent Office were subject to an intensive management survey. The report of the survey succinctly set forth basic reasons for the current proposal. It said, in part: It is unmistakably clear * that the Patent Office's need for adequate space and facilities permeates and overshadows most of the many other areas requiring improvement. Adequate space and facilities is a keystone without which other improvements cannot be expected to stand as a cure to the longrun and chronic problems of the Patent Office.

Conditions today are not unlike those which must have existed 50 years ago, when the President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency, in reporting on an investigation of the U.S. Patent Office in 1912, stated that:

"*** it has become a settled conviction that any permanent improvement in the quantity and quality of work done by the Office, if done at a reasonable cost, must wait upon provision being made for adequate office accommodations for the force of more than 900 people employed in the Patent Office. * *

It went on to recommend the erection of a new building to be used exclusively by the Patent Office and to be designed and equipped to meet the peculiar needs of the work of the Office, stating that "provision should be made for not less than 500,000 square feet of floor space within the building."

Today, over 2,400 employees of the Patent Office are sought to be accommodated in less than the 500,000 square feet of space recognized to be needed 50 years ago. Compared with the 50 years preceding 1912, the last 50 years have brought forth over twice as many patent applications and seen the issuance of over twice as many patents of increasing complexity. Relatively speaking, accommodations for Patent Office operations have deteriorated during the past 50 years there were about 200 square feet per employee of space of all kinds in 1912, there are about 200 square feet per employee of space of all kinds today but the amount of patent reference matter to be accommodated along with the people has more than tripled in 50 years. The result finds the professional patent examiner with net working space of much less than existed under the inadequate conditions of 50 years ago. (Complete text of this portion of the report appears as exhibit 1.)

Here I should like to depart from the statement to say that those problems of the Patent Office have been analyzed and discussed in detail before the Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House, and in a series of monographs published by the Committee on Patent Trademarks and Copyrights of the Senate.

The program expansion to which the survey report refers is not one of administrative choice. It is one imposed by law and nurtured by an unprecedented technological advancement during the past two generations. Since the beginning of World War II alone, both the workload and the staff of the Patent Office have almost doubled.

Unfortunately space allotments have not even remotely kept pace with this growth. In 1942 the Patent Office occupied 375,000 square feet of space with 1,400 employees. Today it occupies 518,000 square feet with 2,500 employees-a personnel gain of 79 percent-a space increase of 48 percent. And even this space is divided between four locations, of which two are more than 40 years old. What in 1870 was a showplace of the Nation's Capital is today an overcrowded assortment of makeshift offices completely inadequate for carrying out its statutory obligations.

A new building, just for the sake of erecting a monument is not important. Its effect on the people who occupy it and their ability to efficiently perform assigned tasks at the quality level demanded of them is quite another matter. Of the 2,500 employees now assigned to the Patent Office, over 1,200 are examiners and are professionally trained men and women. They are all engineers or scientists and all have at least one technical degree. Many have advanced degrees, usually in law, and all are responsible for a unique technical-judicial function indispensable to our Nation's progress. In addition to the formal education an examiner brings to this job, the Government invests a substantial sum in on-the-job training. It has been estimated that a skilled, fully trained patent examiner costs the Government between $15,000 and $20,000.

Despite salary reforms and increased promotional opportunities, the Patent Office "enjoys" an annual turnover rate of 20 percent among these experienced, well-trained employees on whom it must rely for the very preservation of the patent system. Why do they leave? One answer can be found in exit interviews where 85 percent of all examiners mention crowded working conditions and lack of air conditioning as factors influencing their decision to seek other employment. These people are working in quarters that are not air conditioned, a problem which many people do not consider.

Until the Patent Office can compete with other scientific agencies, not to mention private industry, on an environmental as well as a salary basis, the turnover can be expected to continue. If it continues the ultimate effect on our patent system will be disastrous, since for many years to come we must rely on the human intellect as a primary source of judgment.

Mute but dramatic testimony to the seriousness of the situation can be obtained by even the most casual tour through a typical examining group. Here the problem displays itself in its rawest form. It is here that the graduate engineer-attorney must surround himself with his search files and give considered judgment to matters affecting the very lifeblood of the Nation's industrial economy. What does such a tour reveal? First of all, it reveals an overwhelming volume of search records containing the vitally important history of endeavor in every field of science. Files that are active, essential tools to the examiner's work-files that must be constantly and readily available to him. Today, because the Office has been pushed and cramped and squeezed, these active records occupy one-third of the total space assigned to the patent examining corps. The net resultthe average patent examiner has approximately 49 square feet of space about the size of a ping-pong table, in which to place his desk, chair, and perhaps a bookcase. In this space he must conduct an independent research program, confer with fellow examiners, and interview attorneys and inventors.

Mr. Chairman, there are people present today from the examining corps in the Patent Office. I notice from the list of prospective witnesses that Mr. Ralph Blakeslee intends to testify, and the committee may care to ask him about working conditions in the Patent Office.

Exhibit No. 2 is a graphic illustration of the situation. The examiner in this picture is Mr. Burton Faust. Mr. Faust holds a bachelor's degree in physics and chemistry and is now a GS-14. He