Mr. CURTIN. Senator, I would like to make one slight addition to what has been said, and that is that this housing was to take care of personnel at two stations in the area, one of which would be the Johnsville station, which is better than 6 miles away as I understand it, and the other the Willow Grove Air Station which is better than 11 miles away. It is the feeling of all of the people in the area that it is very easy, and the land is available for much more convenient sites than this site that has been picked.

I would also like to say, sir, that these two gentlemen were accompanied by 10 other people today, and I would like to ask that their names be made a part of the record and their titles in the community as protesting groups.

Senator SYMINGTON. Without objection.

(The list of 10 people referred to follows:)

(1) Mr. Walter Peoples, president, Richboro Harmony Civic Association. (2) Mrs. Charlotte Brown, president, school board.

(3) Winsor Eveland, secretary-treasurer, board of supervisors, Northampton Township.

(4) W. A. Edwards, Northampton Township, building inspector.

(5) Anthony Fergione, chief of police, Northampton Township.

(6) Clifford Darrah, roadmaster, Northampton Township.

(7) James Greenwood, zoning board of adjustment.

(8) W. Richard Lang, Northampton Township, school director.

(9) E. D. Darlington, Esq., Northampton Township, solictor.

(10) Armand E. Adams, citizens representative on special committee.

Senator SYMINGTON. As I understand it, you feel that the Navy should put the housing somewhere else?

Mr. CURTIN. That is right, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. You agree that they need the housing, is that right?

Mr. CURTIN. I haven't heard the Navy argument on it in toto, but I understand that they do put up a pretty good argument that they do need additional naval housing.

Senator SYMINGTON. They say about 150 families now occupy substandard housing, while almost 300 are paying more than the maximum allowable housing costs.

In addition, current plans involve an increase of about 90 eligible families. Have you looked around to see if there was any other land they could get, and at what price, as against this land that they do already own?

Mr. CURTIN. I will let Mr. Geyer answer that.

Mr. GEYER. The land that they acquired from the Army I would assume was simply deeded over to them at no cost. I am not too terribly familiar with those transactions. The areas around Johnsville Naval Air and Willow Grove Naval Air do contain a large amount of still rural area, farmland. The prices I am afraid I cannot speak on.

We have areas immediately in sister adjoining townships that are appropriately zoned for this type of high-density zoning, principally on the basis that they do have adequate basic facilities, water, sewer, transportation, shopping and recreation.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, sir. We have made your statement a part of the record.

Mr. Congressman, we will send over what has been said here to the Pentagon and ask the Defense Department to give us the position of the Navy Department.

Mr. CURTIN. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SYMINGTON. I appreciate your coming down.

(Letters from Senators Joseph S. Clark and Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania follow :)

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

U.S. SENATE,

June 2, 1965.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Included in S. 1771, the military construction authorization bill presently before your committee, is a request for authority to build 200 units of Navy housing in Northampton Township, Bucks County, Pa. The item is listed under "Naval complex-Johnsville, Pa."

The tract to be developed was originally purchased by the Army as a NIKE site. Apparently because of its seeming proximity to the Naval Air Station at Johnsville and the fact that it is presently in Federal ownership, it has been deemed desirable by the Navy as a site for housing.

Unfortunately, however, construction of such high-density, low-cost housing on this tract is completely incompatible with the zoning and services in the surrounding area. Construction of the housing is opposed by the elected representatives of the area, including the Congressman. Vigorous protests have been lodged with me by many of the residents.

Because this site is 6 miles removed from Johnsville and has no public transportation available, I feel quite certain that a more appropriate tract, served with the necessary water and sewer lines, can be located for the housing closer to Johnsville and Willow Grove where the occupants will work.

For these reasons, I sincerely hope you will find it possible to delete this item from the authorization request until a more suitable location can be found. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH S. CLARK.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., June 14, 1965.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee,
Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to request that you and the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee give your utmost attention to the statements and testimony before you protesting the proposed construction of 200 naval housing units at the former Richboro NIKE site in Northampton Township, Pa.

As a Senator from Pennsylvania, I am particularly concerned by the problems of zoning density and increased school population which will result if this project is constructed, as now planned. In this regard, I would like particularly to call your attention to the thoughtful research and preparation evidenced in the information furnished to the committee by Mr. John Geyer, vice chairman for the Northampton Township Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Raymond O. Gilbert, supervisor and principal of schools for the Northampton area. Additional information is contained in the excellent statement of Hon. Willard S. Curtin, who also spoke in opposition to this project. Rather than belabor the committee with a restatement of facts already presented, let me simply emphasize that I concur with these views.

As you know, the House Armed Services Committee, on May 25 of this year, deleted this controversial section from its bill, H.R. 5885. It is my earnest hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee, after a careful review of all of the pertinent data, will take similar action by dropping the proposed Richboro naval housing project from S. 1771.

Sincerely,

HUGH SCOTT, U.S. Senator.

Senator SYMINGTON. Next is Mr. Joseph L. Fisher, chairman of the County Board of Arlington, Va., on the Defense Intelligence Agency Building of Arlington.

Will you come up, Mr. Fisher, and take a seat. You are chairman of the County Board of Arlington, Va., is that correct?

DIA BUILDING, ARLINGTON, VA.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. FISHER, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON, VA.

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir; I am.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. FISHER. I have submitted a statement that is in this folder, which contains the background of this from the point of view of Arlington County, and I would like to make a few more general remarks.

Senator SYMINGTON. Your prepared statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:)

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA.,

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY BOARD, Court House, Arlington, Va., May 20, 1965.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I wish to extend my thanks for the kind invitation extended through the chief clerk of your committee, Mr. Charles B. Kirbow, to submit the following statement on behalf of the Arlington County Board for the consideration of your committee in connection with the proposed construction of a facility for the Defense Intelligence Agency on the Arlington Hall site in Arlington County.

Arlington County, of course, favors construction of adequate space to house the Defense Intelligence Agency located at a point which will enable the Agency to carry out its essential staff service to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Arlington, however, opposes DIA's current proposal to build permanent quarters at Arlington Hall. It is our belief that Arlington Hall is not the best location for the Agency. It is certain that locating DIA's large office building complex at the Arlington Hall site would create a significant and adverse impact on the surrounding residential area.

We are unable to speak to DIA's analysis of alternate sites because we have had no opportunity to see this analysis. Arlington County has been and is ready and willing to cooperate with DIA in a study of alternate sites; however we have had much difficulty in gaining the cooperation of the officials of DIA in this effort. We earnestly request your persuasive assistance so that we may have that cooperation with DIA so necessary in arriving with them at the best solution to their housing problem, both from the standpoint of the Nation and of our community.

We are confident a superior location can be found at one of the many sites in the 600-acre Pentagon area or at numerous possible locations elsewhere in the northern Virginia area. Approximately 20 percent of Arlington County's land has already been taken by the Federal Government, while we in Arlington are desperately in need of land for schools, parks, and other community purposes. Briefly, our objections to the Arlington Hall site for a permanent location for DIA are as follows:

(a) Arlington Hall is located on Arlington Boulevard (U.S. Route 50), a main thoroughfare through Arlington County which already carries twice its design capacity during peak hours. Any further increase which would be generated by the proposed DIA complex would only add to traffic congestion along this main transportation corridor.

(b) The Arlington Hall site is abutted on two sides by single-family residential areas and the adopted land use plan for Arlington County proposes continuation of this low-density use. The construction of an office structure of the size contemplated would be a serious detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. (c) A structure of the size proposed can have a very serious impact on public facilities, such as storm and sanitary sewers. We do not know to just what exent existing facilities will be affected.

(d) Arlington land is over 90 percent occupied, much by the Federal Government, while Arlington's need for land for community facilities is increasing. If vacated, the Arlington Hall Reservation would furnish land critically needed for education and other community purposes. These facilities would be used by many of the Department of Defense families living in Arlington as well as

others.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent resolution of the Arlington County Board pertaining to the Arlington Hall site. Also appended hereto is Arlington County's master plan land use map showing the character of the Arlington Hall environs and the impact of a large employment center on them; and a chronology relating to the use of the Arlington Hall site.

I shall be glad to furnish you with any additional information you may request and appreciate your courtesy in affording me the opportunity to submit this statement and to appear before your committee at a time to be arranged. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH L. FISHER,

Chairman, County Board of Arlington County, Va.

RESOLUTION

Whereas very little land remains in Arlington County for educational and other community uses to meet growing needs, with the Arlington Hall site the only site large enough for certain such purposes;

Whereas the Department of Defense is by far the largest employer in Arlington and has many of its employees living in Arlington, and therefore has a direct interest in a high level of community services in Arlington;

Whereas until the Second World War emergency Arlington Hall had been for many years used for educational purposes;

Whereas the Department of Defense has released only a cursory statement regarding alternative sites for the DIA Building with no supporting analysis, even though the Congress requested that a study of other sites be made:

Whereas the large DIA office building now proposed for the Arlington Hall site would very severely impact the surrounding residential area and would be quite inconsistent with the county's master plan: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Arlington County Board urge that the Federal Government (including the relevant committees of Congress, the President, and the Department of Defense) not approve construction of the proposed building, that the Arlington Hall property be declared surplus, and that Arlington County be given first opportunity to acquire the property for educational and other community purposes.

(Adopted by county board on February 27, 1965.)

CHRONOLOGY OF ARLINGTON HALL, ARLINGTON, VA.

1. Previous to 1942, Woman's Junior College campus of 87 acres. 2. In 1942, War Department condemned it as emergency need. for it.

Paid $650,000

3. Used as secret and semisecret facility until present time. 4. In early 1964, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) initiated an appropriation for $17.9 million for building a massive office building of some 640,000 square feet on the Arlington Hall property.

5. The Arlington County Planning Commission and the Arlington County Board took action unanimously opposing such development.

6. The Arlington County Planning Commission appointed Commissioner J. Fuller Groom to head a citizens' committee to oppose this development.

7. The Arlington County Civic Federation and some 30 local civic associations, plus other organizations, passed resolutions opposing this development.

8. The citizens' committee, named "Arlington Hall for Arlington County" (AHAC), estimates 90 to 95 percent of Arlington citizens are opposed to the DIA development.

9. In May of 1964, this committee successfully opposed this development in a hearing before the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the appropriation was deleted.

10. The House Armed Services Committee asked that Arlington County confer with the DIA on other alternate sites for construction of this building on Government-owned land nearer the Pentagon.

11. Arlington officials, under date of May 18, 1964, asked for this conference. 12. DIA rebuffed this request June 4, 1964. "We do not feel any further discussion of alternate locations would be useful at this time."

13. However, under prodding by administration officials that such lack of cooperation was "bureaucratic," DIA reluctantly granted a conference.

14. Grudgingly and with no apparent interest, the DIA committee met with the Arlington County officials on June 30, 1964. They promised to cooperate. 15. July 8, 1964, Arlington County manager wrote a three-page letter to make an official record of the meeting, recounting the discussions and the promise of full and immediate cooperation in seeking an alternate site.

16. Nothing was heard from DIA until February 9, 1965, when it advised Arlington County that they were again applying for an appropriation to construct the facility on Arlington Hall.

17. In a hearing before the Under Secretary of Defense, February 23, 1965, DIA officials were asked if they proposed to build this facility against the opposition of 90 percent of Arlington citizens; they answered that they would.

18. The reasons for Arlington County citizens and officials for opposing this development are as follows:

A. The zoning is S-3A, or for parks, recreation, education.

B. The overwhelming portion of the boundaries of Arlington Hall is adjacent to one-family homes. Further commercialization of the area would follow a massive office building development.

C. The needs of Arlington County for land for educational and civic and cultural development are paramount to that of the Defense Department.

(1) Less than 7 percent of Arlington County is undeveloped. Only a few scattered lots outside of streamland and palisades of Potomac remain.

(2) Arlington Hall is the only large piece of land in the county available for above purposes.

(3) Arlington County with area of 25.5 square miles, making it one of the smallest counties in the Nation, has 2,924.8 acres, or 18 percent of its land, under Federal ownership.

(4) New roads, accessible to the Capitol, are further diminishing our land. Rosslyn, alone, a former industrial area, now new office buildings, has lost 50 acres in the past 3 years to necessary roads leading into Washington.

(5) A predicted population increase of 50,000 to 100,000 in the next 20 years, makes necessary more ground, more public purposes. D. The need to develop a beautiful and cultural community which surrounds the Nation's shrine, the National Cemetery, is imperative. (1) The Nation's image of Arlington is the resting place of "The Unknown Soldier, Known but to God." We must keep incompatible developments from wrecking that image.

E. Cooperation in President Johnson's program of beautification of our cities and his definite program through Secretary Udall "to clean up the Potomac and protect the palisades," which is adjacent to Arlington is already receiving the attention of Arlington officials.

(1) Already criteria have been developed by Arlington to redevelop our older areas, without urban renewal. This plan is in progress.

(2) Defiance of Arlington land use plan by a department of Government is unwise and unthinkable.

F. Arlington believes that in the 600-acre complex nearer to the Pentagon alternate sites are available on Government-owned land, which do not conflict with its land use, and DIA states that "the nearer to the Pentagon, the better even atop of it if it could be."