[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 571-572]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

 SENATE RESOLUTION 8--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT CONGRESS 
 HOLDS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO BORROW MONEY ON THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED 
         STATES AND SHALL NOT CEDE THIS POWER TO THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of 
Wisconsin, and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Finance:

                               S. Res. 8

       Whereas it is Congress' prerogative and duty to decide how 
     much the Nation will borrow and for what purposes;
       Whereas Congress has the responsibility under the 
     Constitution to regulate the terms and conditions under which 
     the Nation borrows funds;
       Whereas Congress has the power and the obligation to ensure 
     that payments are made on the national debt;
       Whereas Congress is directly accountable to the people 
     concerning any tax and spending burdens placed upon the 
     public;
       Whereas these Constitutional powers and responsibilities 
     create an appropriate check on the executive branch and 
     preclude the President from raising taxes and issuing debt;
       Whereas on November 29, 2012, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, on behalf of the President, proposed that Congress 
     should surrender its authority to establish the debt limit of 
     the United States to the executive branch; and
       Whereas for 6 decades Congress and the President have 
     routinely used the necessity of increasing the debt limit as 
     a vehicle for debate and broader reforms on the path of 
     spending and future deficits: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that 
     Congress--
       (1) should not relinquish its long utilized authority 
     vested in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution to 
     ``borrow money on the credit of the United States'' by 
     refusing to debate, amend, and vote on a bill to address the 
     debt limit; and
       (2) should not provide the executive branch with exclusive 
     power to issue debt on behalf of the United States 
     Government.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am rising to submit a resolution making 
it absolutely clear that Congress, and only Congress, has the authority 
and responsibility to set the Federal debt limit. I should not even 
have to submit a resolution such as this, but I feel it is absolutely 
necessary.
  Raising the Federal debt limit--the limit we place on government 
borrowing--as everybody knows, has been a hot topic around Washington. 
It is a key issue for the start of the 113th Congress. It is another 
case where if we could just maintain regular order, regular authority 
to address our problems, that is the best way for us to approach the 
task of getting our fiscal house in order.
  I know there is a lot of dispute over what breaching the limit means. 
There is a lot of talk about that. It is clear a great deal of the 
public and our financial markets are extremely concerned about the 
Federal Government's ability to meet its financial obligations once we 
do hit the limit.
  The President has asked for a very large increase in the debt 
ceiling, and some in the administration have called for no limit at 
all. Others of the administration and in the House are calling for 
Congress to give up its authority to set the debt limit--rather 
amazing--thus giving the executive branch unilateral authority to 
borrow. This is not a good idea.
  If the Federal Government does not collect enough revenue to pay for 
all its spending obligations, it must borrow to make up the shortfall. 
Everybody knows that. We are borrowing now about 42 cents of every $1 
we are obligated to spend.
  This is clearly--I think everybody would agree on either side of the 
aisle and the public--an unsustainable situation which will only get 
worse if we do not begin meaningful discussions over our spending 
priorities, including--including--entitlement spending to strengthen 
and preserve those programs for future generations.
  The national debt is growing. Everybody has seen that chart. It is 
about $16.4 trillion. The total public debt outstanding at the end of 
the third quarter just passed was $16.07 trillion. That is up from 
$15.86 trillion reported in June 2012. We are on the wrong path.
  The Federal debt is now equivalent to at least 73 percent of the 
Nation's gross domestic product--nearly double the level as a 
percentage of GDP that we had back in 1990. That is not too long ago.
  According to some measures, there has been a 60-percent increase in 
the debt limit since 2009. At the rate we are going, in a few short 
years we will be spending more to pay interest on the debt than we will 
on all discretionary programs outside of defense. Even defense now is 
going through a very difficult time with the sequester and has already 
been cut about one-half trillion dollars.
  Let me just say that means no money for education. That means no 
money for agriculture. That means no money for the environment. That 
means no money for health care. It all goes to pay off interest on the 
debt.
  The Federal debt is the accumulation of this borrowing, including all 
bills, notes, and bonds issued by the Department of the Treasury.
  The current statutory debt limit is $16.394 trillion, which was 
established on January 28 of last year, 2012--about 1 year ago--under 
the procedures of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
  According to the Department of the Treasury, as of December 31--just 
last month--total debt outstanding subject to the limit was only $25 
million--million; it used to be a lot of money--below the current 
limit.
  Once the amount of outstanding debt reaches the debt limit, the 
government can no longer issue additional debt to cover the cash 
shortfalls needed to fund government operations and meet legal 
obligations.
  Similar to the power of the purse, Congress's powers over borrowing 
are firmly rooted in our constitutional traditions. The Founders 
understood the potential danger of permitting the executive branch to 
unilaterally incur new public debt. Article I of the Constitution 
empowers only--only--Congress ``to borrow money on the credit of the 
United States.''
  The debt limit is the means by which Congress--Congress--exercises 
this critical legislative responsibility.
  I can remember well that lesson, that lecture, if you will, from 
Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institutional flame of the Senate, 
who would have repeated that Congress cannot give debt limit authority 
to the executive, should not, cannot. It is not constitutional.
  To implement this congressional prerogative, the amount of money the 
Federal Government is allowed to borrow is subject to a specific 
statutory limit.
  From time to time, Congress considers and adopts legislation to 
change this limit and has done so more than 100 times since the first 
modern debt limit was set way back in 1939, and we will do so again 
shortly. We have to.
  So preserving this role and establishing the debt limit is vital to 
encourage deficit reduction and to uphold our constitutional tradition 
of legislative control over borrowing. Not only does the debt limit 
provide an essential check on executive borrowing, it provides public 
accountability--everybody is talking about transparency--for Congress's 
borrowing and debt management practices. We cannot duck that 
responsibility. We cannot pass this debt limit simply to the Executive 
and duck our responsibility and the public accountability.
  In other words, debates over the debt limit, as difficult and as 
contentious as they are--and they are; I know that--shed the light of 
day on the overall financial condition of the Federal Government. 
Precluding these discussions by removing Congress's authority over the 
debt limit would lead to a less well-informed decisionmaking over 
fiscal policy. That is probably the understatement of my remarks. It is 
a nice way to put it.

[[Page 572]]

  We can do this. In the past, legislation to raise the debt limit has 
frequently been coupled with legislation to reduce the overall Federal 
debt and deficit. That is the way we should do it. These extensions, 
often approved on a bipartisan basis, have been important catalysts for 
fiscal reform. In this respect, the debt limit is a strong mechanism, a 
strong tool, a way for Congress to evaluate fiscal policy and to 
maintain control over such policy.
  Abdicating this role would fundamentally alter the checks and 
balances embedded in the Constitution. This is a power that should not 
be bargained away.
  The necessary and critical battle to control spending is far from 
over. I view the debt ceiling debate as a critical means in what has to 
be an ongoing effort to tighten the government's fiscal belt--if we can 
just do that. But we cannot settle our national finances by 
fundamentally altering the constitutional structure and processes 
governing those finances. We cannot cavalierly give up one of our most 
important tools in evaluating and reining in the Federal Government's 
runaway spending.
  Equally clear, we cannot keep spending what we do not have. We must 
continue to fight for spending cuts, for debt reduction, and against 
tax increases and, I might add, the tidal wave of regulations that 
continue to pour out of Washington.
  In response to calls to give up this vital congressional authority 
over debt issuance, I am submitting today a simple resolution. Let's 
put the Senate on record. The Congress holds the sole authority to 
borrow money on the credit of the United States and cannot cede this 
power to the President.
  I invite everybody to cosponsor this important measure and look 
forward to passage of this resolution. This should be a bipartisan 
effort, and it is absolutely necessary.

                          ____________________