to making a thing an American tradition only through hearsay, that he would like to see that put into law and on the statute books.

Mr. SAHм. We have had from time to time additional classes of veterans come into being with the various wars we have engaged in. As these additional classes of veterans have come into existence the Congress has included them within the preference provisions of the public-land laws.

Mr. FORRESTER. Could we not make that permanent, by saying any veteran of any future war? Would that not cover it completely where you would not have to be constantly coming back? Do you have any other questions?

Mr. PICKETT. Yes. Mr. Sahm, I am going to say this, and I do not know whether anybody will agree with me or not. I think the declaration of emergency in December 1950 was the result of the conflict in Korea. It was brought about principally because of the conflict in Korea. That conflict will wind up some of these days, I believe. I sincerely hope so. There will be a reasonable time after the actual shooting stops within which there will be some evacuation of the military personnel of the United States and our allies in the United Nations' effort over there from Korea to their own homes or elsewhere.

Your object here is to take care of the Korean veterans. At the time we have evacuated our personnel from the Korean area, and from Japan, whenever that takes place, we will have gotten out of the actual conflict in Korea and we will then be able to say that those men who were discharged from service from there on are veterans of the Korean conflict.

However, by the extension of this statute to cover the period of the national emergency as declared in December 1950, we are extending these rights to members of the Armed Forces whenever they become veterans at whatever part of the world they may have served, and in perpetuity, without the situation being tied to the Korean conflict.

Mr. SAHм. Insofar as the reduced requirements are concerned, that is true, as I attempted to indicate before. A veteran can assert those rights as to reduced homestead requirements at any time. Now, as far as that 90-day preference is concerned-I am very glad that you mentioned that because the next item here ties in exactly with that, and that is item 2 (c), House Joint Resolution 386, which reads as follows, and that is on page 10 of the bill :

The ten-year period provided for in section 4 of the Act of September 27, 1944, cited in paragraph 1, subsection (b) of this section, is extended to two years following the period of the national emergency proclaimed on December 16, 1950, or to such shorter period as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President may provide.

That is to take care of the situation which Congressman Pickett, I believe, referred to, where these veterans in the present conflict may, on the day that the national emergency is brought to an end, still be overseas. As we know, it takes some time to demobilize and so on. In order to afford those boys a reasonable time in which to exercise those benefits, such benefits and preferences would be accorded to veterans for 2 years beyond the termination of the national emergency by section 2 (c) of House Joint Resolution 386.

Mr. PICKETT. I appreciate that, Mr. Sahm. Assuming the state of facts that I referred to, and that when we get through with the

shooting war in Korea and we are out of there. The state of national emergency may have to be continued by reason of some episode that takes place in Africa, the Near East, the Far East, or some other area of the world, and it would just continue in perpetuity. We cannot foresee the end of the general conditions. I hope, of course, as you do, that some conclusion is arrived at. That points up to me the reason why this should be considered from the standpoint of permanent legislation rather than an extension of this act.

That is regardless of whether we extend the privileges in this act or whether we declined to do so. If we decline to do so, what would you do?

Mr. SAHM. You mean if the Congress declined to extend it?

Mr. PICKETT. Yes, sir. Right now, in this bill, if we just struck these sections out of the bill, what would you do in the Department of the Interior.

Mr. SAHм. The only thing we could do would be to just draw a line at the termination of World War II and say that veterans serving during World War II would be qualified and those veterans who serve after World War II officially ends would not be qualified for preference under the public-land laws.

Mr. PICKETT. But you want to take care of the Korean veteran. Then would you not go to your legislative committee, the Public Lands Committee in the House and its corollary committee in the Senate and ask for legislation to take care of those Korean veterans?

Mr. SAHM. Yes, sir, and I make that answer on the basis of the present policy and recommendation of the Department that those benefits be extended to the servicemen that are now serving during the present national emergency.

Mr. PICKETT. Then would you not want the basic legislation to take care of them whether we continue the benefits and privileges that are under this bill or whether we do not? Do you not want to write it into your basic law?

Mr. SAHM. Mr. Pickett, I am not trying to evade the question. I certainly see the point that you and the chairman have made about the wording which would take care of it. The only thing that I can say is I certainly appreciate and recognize the point that you make, but I am not authorized to speak for the Department.

Mr. PICKETT. I understand. A gentleman raised a question a while ago on another section. I want to point up the difficulty in order that you can exercise your judgment as to what you want to do about it. Mr. Bradshaw might have some thoughts on that.

Mr. BRADSHAW. I think perhaps the question is probably moot. I do not know whether it is generally known or not, but in the United States there are very little lands suitable for homesteading left. Most of it is grazing land and most of that is a very poor grade of grazing land. It is not sufficient. You would find 160 acres or 320 acresand those are the two limitations under the Homestead Act-you could not find many of those that would support a family; that are suitable for homesteading. That, of course, would be necessary under the homstead law. This also includes the desert-land law, but you have to get water for that.

Whatever is there-water is getting very scarce at the present time in the West. It has practically all been appropriated. The only place left is Alaska. While Alaska has over 300,000,000 acres of land,

it has been estimated that there is very little bit more than 100,000 acres of land that has not been appropriated, that is suitable for farming. It is mostly muskeg, poor mountainous land not fit for anything, or so far north that it will not produce crops. I really think that the question so far as future wars may be somewhat academic. Mr. FORRESTER. Why is it

Mr. PICKETT. Under the statement that you make, does it not make the question of extension of these privileges now almost moot and academic?

Mr. BRADSHAW. Almost. There are still a few areas that can be found. In other words, during recent years we found that about a third of the lands applied for could be considered suitable for homesteading or for-and a considerable lesser amount than that for desert entry. We do not have too many applications. We have less than one-tenth the number of homestead applications we had 30 years ago, for example.

Mr. PICKETT. How many applications do you now have on file? Mr. BRADSHAW. That is rather difficult to say. I would say that in the entire West we probably would not have more than 500 homestead applications that would have any chance at all of allowance, and we do have maybe twice that many desert-land applications, but the majority of those are in Arizona in areas where reports show that the ground-water level is being reduced rapidly by existing wells, and they will probably, most of those will undoubtedly, be rejected.

Mr. PICKETT. Then the applicants who are attempting to exercise their rights have already fixed their rights and they cannot be taken away from them regardless of what we do here; is that correct? Mr. BRADSHAW. That is correct.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you have enough land available in all these categories to fill the applications that have been filed, in your opinion? Mr. BRADSHAW. No.

Mr. PICKETT. You do not?

Mr. BRADSHAW. No. I would say in the future a small minority of the applications that will be received will be allowed because the Secretary has the obligation to classify the land as suitable for homesteading before he allows an entry. The land, as I said, that is suitable for homesteading, is getting pretty scarce. Occasionally a withdrawal is vacated on a substantial area of land and there may be a few tracts here and there in that area where it is possible to either get enough water to irrigate the land suitably or enough water to put on the land so that with the natural rainfall some sort of crop can be raised.

It seems to me that if you take care of the present emergency-the next war, I hope it will not be soon enough, so that anybody who serves in it will not be able to make an entry. If it should be

Mr. PICKETT. If I get the import of what you said, you have more than enough applications pending to more than take up the land that is available? I mean

Mr. BRADSHAW. I do not want you to misunderstand me. applications for specific tracts. Some enterprising veteran may be able to go out in some unsettled areas and find a tract of land that will be suitable for farming. But his chances are very slim. As a matter of fact, I am not too sure that this is of benefit to the veterans. It may lead a lot to go out there and spend a lot of money trying to

98207-52--16

find land when they could buy a piece of land a lot cheaper in the long run.

Mr. PICKETT. That is certainly indicated from what you say here. I am trying to figure out in the light of the testimony what is the desirability of continuing this. If you have not any more land than you have demand for today, and there would be only isolated cases from time to time which could comply under the rights established by veterans of World War II and other conflicts, you just would not be able to supply the demand, if I understand your statement.

Mr. SAHM. I have some statistics here on homestead applications and reclamation homestead entries. If you are interested in them I can read them into the record.

Mr. PICKETT. Personally I am not much of a statistician. I would rather have it put in the record and I can understand it better when I look at it. You can insert it in the record.

Mr. SAHм. I can read it. It will only take a minute.

Mr. PICKETT. All right.

Mr. SAHM. For the fiscal year 1951, in Alaska, 178 homestead applications were allowed, comprising 18,144 acres. In the United States, 237 homestead applications were allowed in fiscal 1951, comprising 38,165 acres. As far as reclamation homestead entries are concerned, the number of farm units which were opened for entry since World War II is 1,076. The number of acres in those farm units is 89,606.

Then I also have here the number of reclamation homestead units which will be opened in the next 3 years. For the calendar year 1952 there will be 109 farm units opened up with approximately 85,000 acres. In 1953 it is estimated that there will be 91 farm units opened up with approximate acreage of 12,000. In 1954 it is estimated that 155 units will be opened up with an approximate acreage of 15,000 acres. Those reclamation homestead farm units which will be opened up are in the Columbia Basin in the State of Washington, the Gila project in Arizona, the Conchella project in California and Arizona, the Riverton project in Wyoming, the Shoshone project in Wyoming, and the Minidoka project in Idaho.

Mr. FORRESTER. Is that all that you have on that point?

Mr. BURRUS. Mr. Chairman, I had scheduled each one of these items individually. In taking them altogether, while we may have saved some time, I think that because of the questions and answers which had to be generalized, there may be some misstatements or some inaccuracies. I have in mind-there have been called to my attentiontwo points that I think are not accurate in the record. One item, among these four, gives rights which expire 6 months after peace. That is 1 (a) (24). It is not permanent in the sense that the general statement was made.

Another point is that the 2-year extension in section 2 (c) applies only to one item, and that is where there is a 10-year limit that ends in 1954. In other words, that 2-year extension in 2 (c) does not apply to all four items. I wanted to make that clear and give some warning that there might be some discrepancies of that sort because all four items are slightly different and some of the generalized answers may not be absolutely accurate.

Mr. FORRESTER. I am glad to have that statement. Is there anything further now on those particular items?

Mr. BURRUS. That is all as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned. There is one more veterans' item that Mr. Grove is here to testify on.

Mr. FORRESTER. It is getting late, and we are operating here without a quorum. We would like to have the benefit of other members hearing this. We would like to have them give their opinions, standing on their own feet.

Mr. BURRUS. In other words, you would prefer to leave one of these items so that a quorum would consider it?

Mr. FORRESTER. I want other members to share this responsibility. Mr. BURRUS. Again I want to express my appreciation for the way that you have pushed ahead today. I think we are making progress. We appreciate it.

Mr. FORRESTER. In view of the two other committee meetings and other things that have been brought to my attention, it appears now that Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock would be the first opportunity for us to resume these hearings. We will adjourn this afternoon's meeting with the understanding that unless otherwise notified, that meeting will be at 10 o'clock Wednesday morning of next week.

(Whereupon, at 4: 42 p. m. the meeting was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:00 a. m. Wednesday, March 12, 1952.)