On the recordApril 10, 1997
I appreciate the persuasive arguments of my friend from Arkansas who is a well-known lawyer. I happen to be a banker and not nearly as well known. But I know what a contract is. A contract is a binding commitment of performance. And the question that the Senator from Arkansas raises in his amendment is the sanctity of that contract. This is a subject of pending litigation. I think it is inappropriate to interfere in the sanctity of the Federal contracts. We have a fair administrative process. The courts are involved in this. I think it is important to look at a little history because the Department of Energy has been aware of its obligation since 1982. My reading of the Bumpers amendment suggests that it is essentially representing a determination now by Congress that the Department of Energy is faultless in its default. I think it is the court's job to make that determination. In my opinion, the Department of Energy has followed a consistent course of delay, a consistent course of avoidance including their failure to ask Congress for any additional funds or authority needed to meet the obligation. The Senator from Arkansas suggests that it is the responsibility of the Congress because Congress did not appropriate any money. I am not aware that the Department of Energy ever asked for any money.
Source
govinfo.gov




