Laserfiche WebLink
29 <br /> m <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> Lion that occurs to me in connection with the proposed draft. <br /> I confess that this comment is somewhat off the cup. I <br /> believe, gentlemen of the Legal Affairs Committee, that if o <br /> you read the whole of the laws to which you have given refer- <br /> 0 <br /> ence by sections, you would find that these enactments refer- <br /> red to projects herein or hereafter authorized, that is, <br /> 'herein' being projects listed in these flood control and <br /> river and harbor acts. There is a technicality there as to <br /> whether these enactments were intended to be and can now be <br /> made applicable to projects authorized prior to those acts <br /> of Congress. I remind you that John Martin was authorized by <br /> an Act of Congress in 1936. I think you will find, if you <br /> will read these laws, that the provisions in these laws <br /> nearly always refer to projects herein or hereafter authorized. <br /> MR. VIDAL: What we are trying to do is to mute them <br /> applicable to our situation. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: I don' t think you can dismiss it <br /> quite that way. <br /> MR. VIDAL: No, we haven' t dismissed it. We have <br /> given it consideration. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: Oan you make an not of Congress <br /> retroactive if it isn' t retroactive within itself? <br /> MR. MITCHELL: If we can restrict federal operations <br /> we might not be able to restrict the right of a state. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMR: MY only purpose in raising this <br />