| OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit No. 2014A Identification:.................... Admitted: J.UL.1 8..1957 Extract From Debate on H.R. 5773, S. 728, SJ. Res. 164 and H. Res. 208 (Fourth Swing-Johnson Bill), 70th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. [70 Cong. Rec. 469 (December 12, 1928).] Mr. Pittman. This is what I suggest, that we provide for an agreement between the three States, and let them enter into it if they want to, but if they do not want to, let them stay out of it. That is not coercing a State. This is what I propose, to strike out all of the Hayden amendment down to and including the word "agree," on page 1, in line 6, and in lieu thereof insert the following: The States of Arizona, California, and Nevada are authorized to enter into an agreement, which shall provide. Then go ahead and put down the provisions of the Hayden amendment, and at the end of the Hayden amendment put in a seventh paragraph, which shall read: Said agreement to take effect upon the ratification of the Colorado River compact by Arizona, California, and Nevada. Mr. Hayden. Mr. President, I am not at all insistent that my amendment be adopted in the exact language in |
| Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |
