In addition, you have received a copy of the "United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Recusal Policy," dated May 6, 1993, which contains provisions concerning former employers. You have agreed to adhere to the Committee's recusal policy upon appointment to the position of Deputy Secretary.

You should also be aware that Executive Order 12674, as modified by Executive Order 12731, prohibits employees appointed by the President to positions in the executive branch from receiving outside earned income during the term of the Presidential appointment. Further, title V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95-521, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101–194) contains restrictions on the outside activities of certain Government employees including those appointed by the President. Specifically, section 502 of the Ethics in Government Act provides that such an employee may not permit his or her name to be used by any entity which provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship, whether or not compensation is received for such activity.

Finally, as required by Executive Order 12834, you will be subject to certain post-employment restrictions in addition to the statutory restrictions that will be applicable to you when you terminate your Government service.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

I, Charles B. Curtis, do solemnly swear before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the United States Senate that:

I will be available to appear before this Committee and other Congressional Committees to represent Departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress.

I am not aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should I be confirmed and assume the office to which I have been nominated by the President.

My investments, personal holdings, and other interests have been reviewed by myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interests. There are no conflicts of interests or appearances thereof to my knowledge.

I am not involved in and do not have any assets held in blind trusts.

I do further solemnly swear that the statements made above are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of August, 1995.

APPENDIX II

Responses to Additional Questions

Hon. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, DC, July 31, 1995.

Chairman, Committee on Energy and National Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed you will find my responses to the questions for the record following my confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 27.

If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know. I look forward to working with your committee in the future. Sincerely,

[Enclosures.]

JOHN GARAMENDI, Deputy Secretary-Designate.

Question 1. As you know, many federal laws have not required Congress to review or reauthorize the programs created by the enacting legislation. For example, the Bureau of Land Management has not been reauthorized by Congress for some time, although it continues to receive annual appropriations.

In order to reassert proper Congressional oversight authority, I believe such "sunsetting" periods should be required on every law enacted by Congress. In the absence of an authorization, what are you proposing to do to ensure greater taxpayer accountability and what will you be doing to get a reauthorization passed this Congress?

Answer. On March 9, 1995, Acting Bureau of Land Management Director Mike Dombeck appeared before the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands and testified in support of Congressman Hansen's bill (H.R. 1077) to reauthorize the Bureau of Land Management. I agree with this approach because the legislation will help the BLM to operate more effectively and efficiently by making Congressional oversight of the BLM consistent with that of other Federal land management agencies. Absent reauthorization, I would continue to work with the Congress as it exercised its oversight functions regarding BLM's budget, programs and activities.

Question 2. The National Park Service faces a $1 billion land acquisition backlog, a $6 billion backlog in construction and an $800 million backlog in operations and maintenance. In light of these figures, what strategy would you pursue to eliminate these backlogs? Would you support the efforts of the National Park Service to provide a comprehensive vision statement which examines past criteria for the creation of current parks and details the future criteria for new park units?

Answer. NPS recognizes the challenges presented by the land acquisition, construction, and operations and maintenance backlogs. In order to address the challenges of our parks, the NPS supports ongoing efforts in Congress to reform NPS concessions, housing, admission fees, and leasing policies. These reforms would result in a significant increase in resources available to all parks. To ensure that future additions are worthy of park status, the NPS supports efforts to ensure that potential areas meet specific NPS criteria before they become parks.

As for the review of NPS criteria, the Director of the National Park Service has testified that the NPS would welcome the opportunity to review its existing set of criteria, and to make changes if necessary, to apply to future areas that are being considered for inclusion in the National Park System. Adhering to these new criteria and awaiting completion of the special resources study for each site under consideration would eliminate the tendency to establish parks that have not been studied. This process would preclude the establishment of parks through the appropriations

process or through authorizing legislation that establishes a park without proper study.

In sum, we favor reassessment of the criteria for the establishment of new parks, agreement between the Service and the Congress on those criteria, and concurrence that a process be put into place whereby possible entries that fail to meet those criteria not be imposed upon the system.

Question 3. The position of Deputy Secretary has been vacant since this Administration took office. Why do you think this position needs to be filled now and what do you think you can bring to the Department that isn't already there?

Answer. I am being asked to fill the position as Deputy Secretary because the President and the Secretary feel I can assist them in the many important and complicated matters that are before the Department. I bring to the position long experience as a public servant and policymaker, and, like the Secretary, Western roots and a background of living and working close to the land. I am honored to have been asked to serve in that capacity.

Question 4. One issue you need to get up to speed on very soon is Territories. This is a little known but very important aspect of the Department's work that needs attention. I have been interested in these issues for some time and can assure you that there are some major problems that can and should be fixed if someone is willing to demonstrate some leadership and compassion. I hope I have your commitment to learn about the Department's responsibilities in this arca.

Answer. You most certainly have my commitment to get "up to speed" very soon regarding the Trust Territories.

Question 5. What is your position on the imposition of oil and gas leasing moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf?

Answer. I support moratoria as a means of providing an opportunity to address concerns about existing leases in certain areas. Also, continuing moratoria will provide the assurances needed to continue our dialogue with States and communities and to pursue creative solutions to longstanding conflicts.

Question 6. Ever since the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was passed, there have been problems. As you are aware there have already been hearings in the House on possible amendments.

Do you think that amendments are necessary?

Answer. I am aware that a hearing was recently held by the House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. At this time, the Department of the Interior does not believe that modifications to the Act are appropriate. Ample time has not elapsed to determine whether sections of the Act are not working and cannot be resolved through administrative means. The Bureau of Reclamation assures me that they believe that those areas which have been particularly difficult to implement have and will continue to be addressed through administrative methods.

I would like to see the cooperation and goodwill which was exhibited by all stakeholders in California during the Bay/Delta process continue. If however, it is determined in the future that legislative changes are necessary, I believe a cooperative effort similar to the Bay/Delta accord is essential to determining the appropriate means to address those changes.

Question 7. The Act established a Restoration Fund with contributions from water users and power. Until this year, the Department has used the fund primarily for salaries for federal employees and studies.

Do you think that is a proper use of the Fund?

Answer. In the 20 years that I have been involved in western water issues, I have observed that far too much money is spent on studies and far too little on action. I will do my best to reverse that. The Bureau of Reclamation has informed me that, as with any new program, initially there is a significant amount of staff time spent to identify the specific nature of the problems before site specific on-the-ground programs can be initiated. In 1995 however, out of approximately $40 million which will be obligated, $32 million will be spent on activities such as the Shasta Temperature Control Device, modernization of the Coleman Fish Hatchery, and the acquisition of water from willing sellers for fish and wildlife. Federal staffing has not been increased significantly to perform those activities/programs mandated under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Reclamation will fund approximately 16 FTE from the CVP Restoration Fund in both fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The Fish and Wildlife Service will fund approximately 30 FTE from the CVP Restoration Fund in fiscal year 1995 and approximately 25 to 27 FTE in fiscal year 1996.

Question. Do you have any suggestions on how to ensure that any assessments for fish and wildlife are actually used for that purpose?

Answer. Yes, a group of business leaders, water user organizations, environmental groups, and farmers meet on a regular basis to identify the most pressing environmental issues facing the Central Valley Project. This group, commonly referred to

as the CVP Restoration Fund Roundtable, serves as an excellent forum for discussing the priorities of individual restoration activities which receive funding from the restoration fund. Each year we also provide an annual report to Congress which outlines how funding is spent from the restoration fund.

Question 8. As a practical matter, do you think that the water requirement within California, including fish and wildlife, would be better served if the State and local interests had complete control of all the facilities in the Central Valley rather than having the federal government in control of 40% of the developed water supply?

Answer. The transfer of the CVP to the state of California or a special agency within the State is an option that should continue to be explored. If both the CVP and the State Water Project were operated as an integrated system, this would optimize the available water supplies in California. However, such a transfer would involve complex and potentially expensive issues such as electrical power, water rights, flood control, manner of payment to the Federal government and coordination with existing facilities.

Question 9. Last fall, Secretary Babbitt made a comment in California that he did not believe that releases from Friant should be used to restore the salmon fishery in the Upper San Joaquin.

Do you concur with that comment?

Answer. Under Section 3406(c)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Department is directed to: "develop a comprehensive plan, which is reasonable, prudent, and feasible, to address fish, wildlife, and habitat concerns on the San Joaquin River, including but not limited to, streamflow, channel, riparian habitat, and water quality improvements that would be needed to reestablish, where necessary, and sustain naturally reproducing anadromous fisheries from Friant Dam to its confluence with the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary ..

The Secretary expressed his view that "releasing water from Friant Dam to restore and sustain the San Joaquin River fishery, would clearly go beyond the "rcasonable, prudent and feasible" criteria for anadromous fish restoration. I concur in that judgment.

Question 10. As you are aware, last year the Department proposed regulations on the Colorado that in part would have the Secretary determine what constitutes a beneficial use of water in the Lower Basin.

Do you think that the Federal government or the States should determine what constitutes a beneficial use of water?

Answer. The Boulder Canyon Project Act and the Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California confer upon the Secretary several unique authorities and responsibilities for management of the Colorado River. Included is the responsibility to determine what constitutes beneficial use of lower Colorado River water. The Secretary has historically consulted with the states to try to accommodate their varied interests in such matters. The beneficial use criterion proposed in the draft regulations was based on a provision of California water law which treats the conservation and marketing of conserved water as a beneficial use. The Secretary is considering the adoption of that criterion to provide more flexibility in the utilization of Colorado River water and to provide a framework which would accommodate interstate marketing of Colorado River water to help meet the increasing needs of urban areas reliant on the river for their water supplies. Discussions with the Lower Basin States and Indian Tribes have been conducted to try to reach a consensus on river management issues, including the determination of what constitutes beneficial use for water marketing and banking purposes. The Department intends to continue its efforts to reach consensus on these issues, and I concur with this approach.

Question. Do you plan to pursue an agenda of rewriting the "Law of the River" while you are at the Department?

Answer. Neither I nor the Department intends to pursue an effort to rewrite the "Law of the River."

Question 11. As a general matter do you think the federal government should comply fully with substantive and procedural requirements of State law with respect to the acquisition and use of water rights?

Answer. As the Supreme Court said in California v. Arizona, the Bureau of Reclamation must comply with state law, as long as state law does not conflict with federal law. I agree with that decision.

Question 12. The Department has proposed new regulations to implement the Reclamation Reform Act.

Would you explain what precisely you feel is deficient in the present regulations? Answer. Over the last few years, Reclamation has gained experience in the administration and enforcement of reclamation law as embodied in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA). Accordingly, Reclamation has found some areas of the