The copper era and Morenci leader., 1922-10-06
Congressman Hayden
 Defends Reclamation

When the soldiers bonus bill was sent to conference to reconcile the differences between the senate and the house, it was placed in the hands of a conference committee of ten consisting of five senators and five representatives of which six were republicans and four were democrats This conference committee rejected both the house plan for soldier settle ment and the McNary amendment SC that the bonus bill contained no pro vision for the reclamation of waste lands. All of the republican con ferees except Senator Shoot of Utah were opposed to reclamation and all of the democrats voted for it except Senator Walsh of Massachusetts. When this conference report was under consideration in the house on September II, Congressman Carl Hayden of Arizona said:
 MIR. HAYDEN. MT. Speaker, am not in such a cheerful frame Of mind as the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr MondelD apparently is with respect to the provisions of this bill. My feelings are outraged at the wrong that has been done. am convinced that if the conferees had sincerely desired to reach an agreement upon Title VIII containing the land-settlement provisions they could have done so without diff ficulty. The only reason that there was no such agreement is because a majority of the members of this conference committee are not in favor of the reclamation of waste lands. The two houses have eX- pressed their approval of the enact ment of legislation providing flor the creation of farms and homes for re turned soldiers It would have been perfectly easy for the friends of a national reclamation-policy to re conci1e the differences between the house and the senate. but this most beneficient legislation fell into the hands of it's enemies, and in cold blood they killed it. The plain and absolute truth is that the conferees made no honest effort to reach an agreement.
 That both the senate and the house are in favor of the reclamation of waste lands to provide homes for veterans of the late war is clearly demonstrated by an examination of this bill. Both houses have provided the means whereby that entirely worthy object can be accomplished the only differences being in mere details. Certainly it would not be difficult for the conferees to deter mine whether the work of reclaim ing arid and swamp lands is to be carried on by a board of five mem bers, of which one is to be the sec retary of the interior, or whether the secertary alone should complete supervision of the undertaking. The senate amendment provides that the federal government shall deal directly with legally organized irrigation and drainage districts. while the house bill provides that contracts may be made with such districts. Conferees earnestly seeking to obtain results would not have taken long to re- cCncile the differences between the two houses on this question.
 Neither the house bill nor tho senate amendment carried any spe- cific amount of money fer the con struction of reclamation projects. The senate amendment limited the total sum to be appropriated for this purpose to $350,000,O00. while there was no limitation fixed by the house In each case the amounts actually expended would be fixed by appro- priations hereafter made by congress based on estimates submitted through the budget. The house and senate also agreed that the government should be reimbursed for the cost of retaining lands except that the house bill allowed credit to veterans to the extent of their adjusted-ser- vice pay, while the senate amend ment provided that the government should be fully reimbursed for all ex- penditures made. Will anyone dare to say that a conference committee honestly in favor of the reclamation of waste lands could not have corl- promised these slight differences with the result that Legislation could have been enacted as part of this bill which would have carried out the plain intent and purpose of both the senate and the house?
 Gentlemen say today that because