Page 2

The Congress felt that such language was necessary to protect authorized reclamation projects. Mr. Mondell, explained why the conferees had agreed that the House should recede from its amendment to the Glacier National Park Act (which had stricken the language) by stating: The second provision was a Senate amendment which authorized the Reclamation Service to use some of the lands for flowage purposes in connection with projects which they have under way, and which the House struck out. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 45, 61st Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 5570-Emphasis Supplied) The reports and debates on S. 390 (which became the Grand Canyon National Park Act) disclose some of the reasoning followed in changing the wording of section 7 from its original form (same as in predecessor park acts), to the form contained in the Grand Canyon National Park Act. This explanation follows: 1. The Secretary of the Interior, in his report of February 5, 1918, on the bill supported use of the language now contained in section 7 of the Grand Canyon National Park Act in preference to that contained in S. 390 as introduced. He said: "Section 7 is not in harmony with the other provisions of the measure, and should be changed * * *." His report went on: "With this alteration the bill will be complete in every particular and will give this Department ample authority to protect, improve, and administer the Grand Canyon and otherwise advance its interests along the lines now employed in the development of the other members of the Park System." 2Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 14,163,968 byte