AZ vs. CA:13 California Exhibits, Vol. XIII; Nos. 1800-1842; 1901-1906; 2000-2044

page 80

-80- tract, when that contract is specifically described or set out, or it may subsequently give its ratification or consent to that contract either before or after it has been entered into by the several States. Mr. Pittman. Undoubtedly that is correct. Mr. Shortridge. I fully agree with the Senator. Mr. Pittman. For instance, Congress, when it authorized the seven States to enter into what we call the Colorado River compact, did not know what they were going to enter into, so it was expressly provided in the consent that the Colorado River compact should not take effect until after it was submitted to Congress and approved. The reason for that is apparent. Congress did not know what it would be, but authorized them in advance to enter into the agreement, not to take effect until approved by Congress, realizing that unless they had incorporated that provision it might be questioned whether or not the consent has not already been given. But in this case that is unnecessary, because the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Hayden] in his amendment has set out the exact terms of any future tri-State compact between Arizona, Nevada, and California. He has set it out in exact language so that we can determine right now whether it is to the interest of the United States Government or not. We can determine now every fact we could determine after it was entered into. Consequently the necessity for coming back for ratification does not appear,. What I objected to, as I said once before, was that these conditions or terms of an agreement, involving her ratification of the 6-State compact, were imposed upon California as a condition of the going into effect of this legislation. I contend that it is not a matter that should be