This paper presents a history of policy and legislation affecting settlement of the Far Eastern Economic Region of the USSR, a similar history for the Pacific Division of the US, and compares the major differences and similarities between the policies and legislation of these 2 nations with respect to settlement of what are now the Pacific territories of the 2 nations. By policy regarding settlement is meant legislation intentionally designed to acquire sovereignty and then populate a region with persons owing allegiance to the given nation. By legislation regarding settlement is meant simply those laws which have consequences for settlement regardless of intent. The history starts with the early 17th century for the USSR and with the early 19th century for the US. In the USSR and in the US, areas adjacent to the Pacific Ocean were annexed by means of direct governmental measures. During the 17th century the efforts on the part of the Tsarist government of Russia to annex territory resulted in armed conflict with the troops of the Chinese Empire. In the middle of the 19th century, following the substantial weakening of Chinese military prowess and in the face of territorial demands on China by the British and French, the Russians were able to impose treaties on the Chinese granting them substantial Pacific territories until then under Chinese rule. A war of conquest against Mexico in 1846-48 made possible for the US the acquisition of California. In addition, a treaty with England in 1846 gave international recognition to US sovereignty in Oregon and Washington. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867, and Hawaii was annexed to the US in 1898. In both nations the construction of railroads to link the Pacific coast with the rest of the nation was actively promoted by governmental legislation. In the US and in the USSR migration to the Pacific region has been promoted by direct financial subsidies to settlers -- in the US by the Homestead Act and irrigation-water subsidies to farmers and in the USSR by transportation subsidies and an elevated level of wages. Ethnic minorities felt to be subsersive were evacuated from both nations during World War II. These similarities in policy between the USSR and the US were not accidental and resulted, in the 1st place, because in both nations there was an imbalance between the distribution of the population and the distribution of natural resources. Secondly, they resulted because each nation has felt the need to extend its power and to defend its territory against other nation states. Yet, at the present time the Soviet government believes the national interest demands the continuation of a large flow of in-migrants to the Far Eastern Economic Region, while the US federal government has largely lost its interest in promoting the development of the Pacific Division since the natural attractiveness of the area (with the exception of Alaska) has served to entice sufficient migrants to develop its resources fully.