us know because we intend to punish those violators, and he has not answered the request.

Mr. ROBINSON. I think, Mr. Saylor, perhaps what I believe your question is directed to is who in the military services has the ultimate responsibility to see that these regulations are complied with. Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. I would say that is the function of the Inspector General of each service.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields to counsel for one question. Mr. ABBOTT. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Robinson or Colonel Tuttle, with respect to the licensing requirements, does not the Department of Defense take the position, in a sense, that military personnel may be involuntarily in State or Territory by reason of a temporary assignment or training duty and, therefore, you feel it might work a hardship and be unreasonable to require in all instances nonresident license compliance?

Mr. ROBINSON. I think that is essentially true. Also it is true that we have exclusive jurisdiction. Should the Federal Government be in the position of collecting licenses for the State?

Mr. ABBOTT. And if language could be developed in the bill-it presently says that unless the licensing requirements are waivedwhereby a standard could be established, say, for more than 90 days. or more than 4 months, would that not meet a part of that concern so that the Congress could attempt to define on a Federal basis what is meant by residence for purposes of local licensing requirements? Do you think that might be considered, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. ROBINSON. Offhand, I think that would be a possibility.

Mr. ABBOTT. But you do take the position that with respect to bag and season limits and the general requirements for conservation and management of game, the Department of Defense has presently directed compliance. You are nodding, Colonel.

Mr. ROBINSON. I think that is true.

Mr. ABBOTT. I believe that is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. The House is in session. We are not through with our questioning of those who are before the committee at this time. You will be notified when we will have our next meeting of the committee, and the first order of business will be the finishing of your presentation.

Mr. ROBINSON. Fine.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:02 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

WITHDRAWAL AND UTILIZATION OF THE PUBLIC

LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES

MONDAY, JULY 2, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Clair Engle (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The House Committee on Interior will be in order for the further consideration of H. R. 10371 and related legislation regarding military withdrawals or reservations of the public lands of the United States.

We have here with us this morning some witnesses from the military, as well as 2 witnesses from the Department of the Interior, 1 from the Fish and Wildlife Service and 1 from the Bureau of Land Management.

Prior to calling the first witness from any of the Defense agencies, I would like to call attention and place in the record a letter received under date of June 28, 1956, from Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Defense, which, without objection, will be made a part of the record at this point.

For the information of the members-I believe you all have it before you the letter, in effect, says that the Defense Department will take vigorous action to eliminate any abuses to the regulations on hunting and fishing which are in effect for all military personnel on military reservations. It says, "that the Department of Defense will continue to adhere to and comply with local and State game laws concerning sex, bag limits, and seasons.

As far as I can tell, it gives no answer at the present time to the matter of licensing.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. CLAIR ENGLE,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, June 28, 1956.

Insular Affairs, House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. ENGLE: It has been recently brought to my attention that your committee is considering legislation involving the problem of hunting and fishing on military reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction. It is my understanding that these problems do not exist in those areas where the Federal Government has concurrent jurisdicton with the States. Upon examining this problem I find that the Department of Defense position can be made consistent with what I understand your committee is seeking to provide by legislation. At the outset I want to assure your committee that I will take vigorous action to eliminate any abuses to the regulations on hunting and fishing which are in effect for all military personnel on military reservations,

123

As you know, the Department of Defense has traditionally held that hunting and fishing on military reservations which are under exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction should not also come under State control. However, as to such areas, the Department of Defense regulations provide that local, State, and Federal hunting and fishing regulations concerning sex, bag limits, seasons, and similar requirements will be adhered to. As you know, in areas where the States have jurisdiction, the State laws apply in all respects. In such cases the hunting and fishing regulations are concurrently policed by State and local officials as well as military personnel.

One of the main problems which has arisen in some of the States and the military reservations located therein has been that of licensing. It is true that in many States military personnel have been treated as residents of the State with regard to hunting and fishing licenses. On the other hand, some States have not extended this courtesy to military personnel and have treated them as out-of-State residents. The result is that hunting for such individuals is in effect prohibited because of high nonresidential licensing fees which run as high as $75.

Upon review of this entire problem, it is evident to me that the policy of the Department of the Defense and that of the local and State authorities with respect to the preservation and protection of fish and wildlife are one and the same.

In carrying out these objectives, I can assure you that the Department of Defense will continue to adhere to and comply with local and State game laws concerning sex, bag limits, and seasons. Violators will be vigorously prosecuted. It is my view that policing both in areas of exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction can be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. I am convinced, however, that military personnel deserve and should receive equitable treatment with respect to licensing fees. Members of the Armed Forces who are assigned to various installations throughout the country do not in many instances have adequate opportunity to comply with residency requirements prior to commencement of hunting seasons. In some States these residency requirements run as high as 1 year before an individual under State law is entitled to purchase a resident hunting license. For morale purposes, military personnel should receive equality of treatment as local residents with respect to licensing fees. In States where a specific residency period is required, special consideration in the form of waivers should be granted.

I can assure you that the legislation which is under consideration by your committee is of great concern to the Department of Defense, and I am hopeful that the views which I have presented will assist you in the resolution of this problem to the satisfaction of all concerned. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to express the views of the Department of Defense on this problem and I stand ready to supply you with such other information as your committee may require.

Sincerely yours,

C. E. WILSON.

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us Mr. George Robinson, the Deputy Special Assistant for Installations, Secretary of the Air Force, accompanied by other members of the Air Force; Colonel Tuttle and Major Lutz of the Army; Mr. Charles Goodwin, Mr. E. M. Waller, Col. Donn Robertson, Capt. J. M. Vosnick, and Lt. Comdr. W. R. Rogers of the Navy.

We are going to try and wind up this testimony from the military in an hour. The Chair would like to find out what you gentlemen have in mind.

With reference to those provisions of this legislation relating to the water-rights problem, it is our inteniton, at least the intention: of the Chair, when we get to that to suggest to the committee we drop that section because it is embodied in other legislation. A portion of that has been acted upon. Or at least a Senate bill concerning water rights has already been acted upon by the Senate committee or subcommittee. It is a big enough and tough enough problem to handle separately...

置

This legislation at the present time covers three matters. It covers the matter of military withdrawals for strictly military uses of 5,000 acres or more; secondly, compliance with local fish and game regulations; and, thirdly, it has this water section. I suspect the committee will be willing to handle the water section separately because it is a big and thorny problem all by itself.

We are planning to confine the testimony, therefore, to the first two propositions; namely, the general provisions of the bill with reference to military withdrawals requiring congressional approval or 5,000 acres or more, and, secondly, relating to fish and game laws, on which the highest authority in the Defense Department has probably moderated some views on that elsewhere in the defense agency.

I am wondering how long it is going to take you. Have you completed your statement, Mr. Robinson?

FURTHER STATEMENT OF GEORGE ROBINSON, DEPUTY SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INSTALLATIONS, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. PAUL V. TUTTLE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; CHARLES GOODWIN AND CAPT. J. M. VOSNICK, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have. I believe at the time we concluded at the last hearing there were some questions raised about the hunting and fishing provisions of the bill, which, as the chairman has stated, I believe have more or less become moot, perhaps, by reason of the position now stated by Secretary Wilson.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice you have Mr. Ceconi, Mr. Pieper, Mr. Miller and Colonel Brannock here with you. Do they desire to testify? Could they add anything to the testimony already given?

Mr. ROBINSON. I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman.

There is one point I believe that has bothered us in connection with the bill, and that is section 3, which I think I covered in my testimony by stating that we thought that it probably needed some clarification. I was not certain in my own mind, and I am certain other people in the Department were not either, as to just how that particular section would operate. We were not sure what you meant by "application." Was that an application to the Interior Department? Was it an application to the Congress?

The point is, if the legislation requires withdrawals over 5,000 acres to be done only after an act of Congress is passed, we believe that all the facts and circumstances necessary to justify that would be made to the committee, and we did not understand what subsequent or prior application had to be accomplished.

The CHAIRMAN. The application, very obviously, applies to an application to Congress, because those under 5,000 acres would be directed to the Interior Department.

Mr. ROBINSON. That is what I thought. In other words, the bill would come over in the normal processing of legislation as a Department of Defense proposed bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. ABBOTT. If I may, Mr. Chairman. There would have to be an application directly made to Congress through the appropriate

81471-56- -9

departments. As we discussed some 2 months ago, the approach on this legislation, it is pretty obvious that, as an antispeculation measure, which is the principal purpose in the present procedure, the defense agency would still file an application with the Department of the Interior local land office, which application, as the defense land people know, has the immediate effect of segregating the land for which a request is made. The effect of that segregation, of course, is to suspend the application of land entry laws so that, for example, after the Department of Defense indicated an interest in withdrawal of public domain status of a given area, mining locators would not go in and file additional locations. But concurrently with that, and as it was published in the Federal Register-and the purpose, of course, was to apprise local people of the effect on various public land entry laws it would serve a dual function: first, segregating the land from further entries; secondly, in as much detail as possible apprising the interested resource groups and State agencies of the general intended use and the effect, therefore, on the local economy.

At the same time, it was my intention, Mr. Chairman, to request that we staff people confer with Defense and the Bureau of Land Management to work that out so it can be cleared up.

But I believe your real-estate people would agree, Mr. Robinson, under those circumstances, should we depart from the present procedures where lands are immediately segregated, because if eventual acquisition was to follow, it would immeasurably compound the difficulty in acquiring exclusive use for the military where that is absolutely necessary, and, of course, it would preclude adding substantial costs for liquidating mining applications or leasing applications or anything else that might be pending at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest, if there are any specific recommendations you have to make with reference to clarifying the language on the assumption the committee is going to pass this or some kind of a bill, and you want the most workable possible language in the law procedurally, if you have some suggestions about that, you make them immediately.

Mr. ROBINSON. I do not have any, I think, with Mr. Abbott's explanation why that was in there. I did not know the detailed procedure.

The CHAIRMAN. If any clarification is necessary or desirable from any of the agencies, we would like to have the language in the most workable form possible. If you have something to suggest in respect to it, we suggest it be submitted in writing to be available to the committee and the committee staff at the time the bill is taken up for markup.

Does that complete your statement?

Mr. ROBINSON. That is entirely satisfactory to us. I do not know whether we have any suggested changes other than what I might have mentioned of a technical nature in my statement or not. I do not believe we do. At least I have heard of none other than what I have mentioned in my statement, which are purely technical and clarifying.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. ABBOTT. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, which goes pretty much to the heart of this bill!