[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16293-16300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFAULT PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 480, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 692) to ensure the payment of interest and 
principal of the debt of the United States, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 692

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Default Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON PUBLIC DEBT AND 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--In the event that the debt of the United 
     States Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, 
     United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall, in addition to any other 
     authority provided by law, issue obligations under chapter 31 
     of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender, 
     and solely for the purpose of paying, the principal and 
     interest on obligations of the United States described in 
     subsection (b) after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Obligations Described.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, obligations described in this subsection are 
     obligations which are--
       (1) held by the public, or
       (2) held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund 
     and Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
       (c) Prohibition on Compensation for Members of Congress.--
     None of the obligations issued under subsection (a) may be 
     used to pay compensation for Members of Congress.
       (d) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--Obligations 
     issued under subsection (a) shall not be taken into account 
     in applying the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, to the extent that such obligation would 
     otherwise cause the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 
     31, United States Code, to be exceeded.
       (e) Report on Certain Actions.--
       (1) In general.--If, after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury exercises his 
     authority under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     thereafter submit a report each week the authority is in use 
     providing an accounting relating to--
       (A) the principal on mature obligations and interest that 
     is due or accrued of the United States, and
       (B) any obligations issued pursuant to subsection (a).
       (2) Submission.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     be submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 692, the Default 
Prevention Act, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to guarantee that the United States will 
never default, then you should vote for this bill. If you want to 
protect working families from the consequences of default, then you 
should vote for this bill. If you want to make sure that seniors get 
every dime of their Social Security, then vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not raise the debt limit, but it 
eliminates the threat of default. The full faith and credit of our 
country is too important to put at risk. What this bill says is very 
simple. It says that we will never fail to pay our debts. That is just 
it. That is all it does. It is just paying our debts.
  We know the consequences of default. We know it would shake the 
world's confidence in us. We know that it could freeze up credit across 
this country. That is why with this bill, we are taking default off the 
table. It is common sense.
  I want to thank Mr. McClintock for developing this legislation, and I 
ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) and ask unanimous consent that 
she be able to control the time from here on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the beginning what needs to be said 
at the end. This doesn't take default off the table. This is an effort 
to obscure the reality. It does not take default off in any meaningful 
way.
  Default by any other name is default, and essentially what this bill 
does is to address part of the problem but leave the rest of it very 
much outstanding and very much there. This bill plays with fire. This 
bill essentially--essentially--attacks the credit of the United States 
of America.
  The Republicans are at it once again. In 2011, they played with it, 
they played with fire, and America was burned. The stock market 
plunged. The S&P downgraded for the first time in history the credit of 
this country. It lowered private pension balances. It essentially 
increased the cost of mortgages for people in this country. That

[[Page 16294]]

wasn't enough. That in 2013 the Republicans played with fire and shut 
down the government. We lost 120,000 jobs. We slowed GDP growth, and 
there was an increase of $70 million in terms of the cost of financing 
debt.
  So what is this really all about? What it is about is paying China 
and other foreign governments first and essentially putting at risk 
millions of Americans. So I just want to refer to who is at risk here. 
Who would be subject to default?
  Payments and benefits to 1.4 million Active-Duty troops, their pay is 
at risk; benefits to almost 4 million disabled veterans; payment for 
health care for 5.9 million veterans; education assistance for over 1 
million; and loan support for homes for over 500,000 or 600,000 
veterans. And then payments to small businesses would be put at risk, 
payments to physicians under Medicare, payments to 30 million-plus kids 
in terms of their meals, and payments to hundreds of thousands of 
grantees of NIH.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is really what this is all about. Nine percent 
of the expenditures of this country are going to be safeguarded, mostly 
for foreign investors, and 30 percent in terms of Social Security 
payments. That means 60 percent would be at risk, 60 percent of the 80 
to 100 million payments each month.
  So, essentially, what the Republicans are doing is creating, here, a 
camouflage. But the problem with it is that it is so transparent. It 
might be as a purpose to try to find a few more votes on the Republican 
side, but when the camouflage is so obvious, I don't think it will 
work.
  The administration has stated its position. That position is very 
clear, and I want to read from this Statement of Administration Policy. 
I quote the last paragraph:

       The President will not tolerate political gamesmanship, 
     which caused the Nation's credit rating to be downgraded in 
     2011 and proved harmful to both the United States and the 
     global economy. For this reason, if the President is 
     presented with legislation that would result in the Congress' 
     choosing to default on our obligations and imperil the full 
     faith and credit of the United States, he would veto it.

  So this bill cannot become law. So why do it? Why not simply face up 
to the need to address the full faith and credit of the United States? 
I think the answer is this isn't policy, this is a ploy, and ploys 
should not be used putting at risk the full faith and credit of the 
United States and payments at risk for millions and millions of 
Americans. That is really what this is all about.
  This is irresponsible. This is indefensible. The only possible reason 
for passing a bill that can't go anywhere is maybe to pick up a few 
votes here. That is irresponsible in terms of the full faith and credit 
of this beloved country of ours.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge strong opposition to this. When this 
came up once before, I think every Democrat voted ``no''--every 
Democrat. So we are supposed to be kind of in a new era talking about 
bipartisanship. We are supposed to be, once again, thinking maybe we 
can act together. Instead, what we have here is a bill by Republicans 
essentially acting alone. It is a serious mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill simply guarantees that the sovereign debt of 
the United States will be paid in full and on time--period. How could 
that possibly be controversial? Yet in today's political environment, 
it is.
  The sovereign debt of the United States is what makes it possible for 
us to pay all of our other obligations in this era of chronic deficit 
spending that we are now in. This bill provides an absolute guarantee 
of that credit.
  Although the Constitution explicitly commands that the public debt of 
the United States is not to be questioned, it provides no practical 
mechanism to achieve this aim. This bill provides that mechanism. It 
says that, whenever we reach the debt limit, the Treasury Secretary can 
continue to borrow to pay interest and principal on the debt.
  It amazes me that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
support loan guarantees to foreign corporations and to special interest 
groups, but they are unwilling to guarantee the loans to our own 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, the national debt is now larger than the entire economy. 
It has doubled in the last decade. The interest on that debt is the 
fastest growing component of the Federal budget. It threatens to exceed 
our entire defense budget in just 8 years.
  If there is ever any doubt over the security and reliability of the 
debt owed by this government, the rates we pay to service our debt 
would quickly rise and sink our country in a tidal wave of red ink.
  Now, this is not a substitute for raising the debt limit. We all 
recognize that in this era of chronic deficit spending under this 
administration that is going to have to happen. We have a 
responsibility to raise the debt limit, but we also have a 
responsibility to review the policies that are driving that debt.

                              {time}  1500

  The Default Prevention Act says loudly and clearly to the world that, 
no matter how much we may differ and quarrel here in Washington, the 
sovereign debt of this Nation is guaranteed and that their loans to it 
are absolutely safe.
  We hear the charge that this would pay debts owed to foreign 
governments before paying our own troops. Actually, more than half of 
our debt is held by Americans, often in American pension funds. China 
holds just 7 percent. But whether our loans come from China or from 
Charleston, without the Nation's credit, we cannot pay our troops or 
meet all of our other obligations.
  Opponents charge that this is an excuse not to pay our other debts. 
Well, what nonsense. This maintains the credit that is necessary to pay 
our other debts.
  Most States guarantee that their sovereign debt will be secure and 
they have done so for generations. Do our friends actually suggest that 
any of these States has ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to 
pay their other bills? On the contrary, by protecting their credit 
first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all 
of their other obligations.
  The President contends that this is tantamount to a family saying it 
would make its house payment, but not its car payment. I sure hope he 
is getting better economic advice than that.
  But let's continue the analogy. If the family is living on its credit 
cards, as we are as a Nation, it had better make the minimum payment on 
its credit card first or it won't be able to pay all the rest of its 
bills.
  And when that family has to increase its credit limit because it is 
not spending within its means, it had better have a serious 
conversation about what is driving its debt and what to do about it.
  Principled disputes over how the debt limit is addressed are going to 
happen from time to time. Just a few years ago then-Senator Barack 
Obama vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit sought by the 
Bush administration.
  When these controversies erupt, as they inevitably do in a free 
society, it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident 
that their loans to the United States are secure.
  Providing such a guarantee would prevent a future debt crisis and 
give Congress the calm it needs to negotiate the changes that must be 
made to bring our debt under control as we authorize still more debt.
  The voices in opposition to this bill are the same voices that have 
cheered the most profligate spending and borrowing binge in the history 
of this Nation. It is time that we managed our affairs responsibly, and 
guaranteeing our debt is an important step in doing so.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

[[Page 16295]]

  The gentleman says we are going to raise the debt limit. Raise it. 
Get a bill here that raises it. And then this political game will be 
totally unnecessary. Raise it. Where is the bill?
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the last few days in New 
York people have been asking me: Do you really think Paul Ryan is going 
to become Speaker of the House? I said: No. They said: Why? Don't you 
believe he is intelligent, smart, dedicated? I said: That is just the 
problem. I can't find anyone that I know and like that is more 
conservative than Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan, if he were to become Speaker, 
would be saying to the Republicans: I cannot accept this responsibility 
unless you respect the integrity of the United States of America. They 
said: Well, Charlie, what does that mean? I said: Well, Paul Ryan 
wouldn't allow us to go into default. Paul Ryan would support 
increasing the debt ceiling. Paul Ryan would recognize that we need our 
infrastructure, we need our jobs, we need education. They said: Well, 
what is the difference with that? I said: If Paul Ryan were to get 
these type of commitments from the Republican Party, Speaker Boehner 
never would have left, McCarthy never would have left.
  So what are we going through today? Well, Paul Ryan knows that this 
is not going to become law. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense.
  It is almost like if you were in a corporation--since we are using 
analogies--and they say: We promise you you are not going to go 
bankrupt. You say: Well, how are you going to do that, since the only 
people that you have to pay are those you borrowed money from? Well, 
what about the cost of manufacturers? What about the salaries of the 
workers? What about the health benefits? What about the other things 
that make America great? Well, we didn't say that we are going to 
protect you for that. But just for the principal and the interest that 
you have to pay, you protect it.
  This doesn't make any sense at all. But since it is going to be 
vetoed, this must mean something to those people that, when you say 
government, they get angry, when you say Obama, they see red, when you 
find cooperation with Democrats, they say that you are not faithful to 
the Republic.
  So I don't know who these people are. We don't see them. They don't 
talk this way. But someone that can believe that just paying off debt, 
foreign and domestic, and not taking care of our veterans, not taking 
care of our military, not taking care of our health concern--if you 
really think that these things are just going to be forgotten, these 
are not the principles that Paul Ryan believes in.
  So, if this passes, if it is vetoed, can't we try to believe that, if 
you really want to have a Republican Speaker, take this garbage off the 
table, say you are going to cooperate for our country? This is more 
important than Republicans and Democrats.
  We are talking about the prestige, the full faith and credit of the 
United States of America. People don't ask whether you are Republican 
or Democrat. They just want to know are you going to pay your debts.
  I thank you for this opportunity.
  And, Paul, if they don't want you as Speaker, we will keep you as our 
chairman.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I rise today in simple, but strong, support for H.R. 692, the Default 
Prevention Act.
  This commonsense bill makes clear that the United States and those 
who vote on the floor of this Chamber prioritize our debt and our 
Social Security payments over our reckless government and otherwise 
irresponsible spending.
  With this bill, we take the hysteria out of our spending debate and 
codify the integrity of our Nation's full faith and credit. And I would 
say, Madam Speaker, that those that appear to oppose this bill really 
and truly at the end of the day need the hysteria that surrounds this 
issue to not go away simply so political points around this issue can 
continue to be made.
  Now, here is a real scary point, not political at all. Today, as we 
stand here, our national debt stands in excess of $18 trillion. Yet, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, government revenues were 
$3.25 trillion for fiscal year 2015 alone.
  With $3.25 trillion revenue coming in, ladies and gentlemen, we do 
not have a revenue problem. But with $18 trillion in debt, we certainly 
have a spending problem. We must get to the root of it, and this bill 
is a responsible step forward.
  It is a responsible step forward because it truly takes the politics 
of this debt and this hysteria off the table so that we can see as 
American people and as a Congress so that we can be exposed to the 
problems so that we can face it and, ultimately, so that we can solve 
it.
  That is what we came to Washington to do. I think a little bit all of 
us did. For me, it is the majority of why I came to Washington, so that 
our tough decisions can be faced, met, resolved, and we can ultimately 
reduce this debt so that our children and grandchildren in the here and 
now and yet to come don't have to be the first and second generations 
in American history that are left worse off.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been here for some period of time, and I have heard a lot 
about caucuses. But I would like to see us do what the gentleman from 
Indiana says, although I disagree with him on his conclusion.
  I would like to see the formation of a responsibility caucus, a 
caucus that is honest with the American people, that doesn't pretend 
that this debt limit vote is a real vote.
  It is a real vote when you cut revenues by hundreds of billions of 
dollars and don't pay for it. And if you think that that does not up 
the debt and somehow pays for it, you haven't been around for the last 
35 years watching.
  The responsibility caucus would say to the American people: If we 
bought it, we are going to pay for it. Whether it was Social Security, 
Medicare, an aircraft carrier, roads and bridges, whatever it was, we 
will pay for it.
  But one of the first things our Republican friends did was they 
negated pay-for, and they certainly wouldn't have it apply to tax cuts. 
Almost every responsible economist I have talked with says there is no 
way you can do this without effectively having default.
  Because if you prioritize debt, by definition, what you are saying is 
there are some debts we will not pay. As soon as you say that, you have 
defaulted. You may not default to a bond owner, but you have defaulted 
on an obligation of the most creditworthy nation on Earth, the United 
States of America.
  This is a game. It is an irresponsible game. It is a game unworthy of 
responsible representatives. Of course we are going to pay our debts. 
We are America. When we say of course we are going to pay our debts, it 
means that we will pay our debts.
  In order to do that, you need to up the debt limit. If you don't want 
the debt limit to go higher, stop buying things or pay for things or do 
both.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible charade that is a 
pretense of fiscal responsibility, not a reality. This is not worthy of 
this Congress or the American people. It is clear that this House has 
been a deeply divided House and a dysfunctional House for a number of 
months now, indeed, for a number of years.
  I understand that there are some people who demand legislation like 
this that won't go anywhere and really won't do anything, and it will 
put the credit of the United States at further risk. Let us reject this 
charade.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I come today to the House as a supporter of the Default Prevention 
Act. Right now our Nation stands at over

[[Page 16296]]

$18 trillion in debt, a number simply too large to comprehend.
  As the House, we have an obligation to the American people to rein in 
out-of-control Federal spending and put our economy on a sustainable 
path forward.
  However, while House Republicans will continue to act to reduce our 
national debt and restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal 
Government, we cannot put the full faith and credit of the United 
States Government at risk.
  The Default Prevention Act ensures that we will continue to pay our 
existing debt obligations providing the economic security and certainty 
that our economy needs.
  This legislation does not allow for an increase in the debt limit. It 
simply allows us to satisfy our existing debt obligations and avoid 
default, even if we reach the debt ceiling.
  This bill also protects Social Security beneficiaries and Americans 
with disabilities by ensuring that their benefits will continue to be 
paid on time. Hardworking Americans deserve to have their benefits 
protected, and this bill does just that. This legislation is a 
commonsense measure that protects Americans' credit and integrity.
  I urge all Members of the House to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), our caucus chair.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding.
  1.4 million troops, 4 million disabled veterans, more than 30 million 
children who participate on a daily basis in school lunch programs, and 
small businesses all over the country are some of the Americans who 
will pay the price if Republicans refuse to authorize our government to 
pay all its bills.

                              {time}  1515

  There are only 8 legislative days left for Congress to avoid 
defaulting on paying America's financial bills. Yet, our House 
Republican colleagues show no signs of putting serious business first 
and trying to work with their Democratic colleagues to pay our Nation's 
bills on time and in full. This bill isn't a solution. It is a sham.
  First, it instructs our government to pay foreign creditors ahead of 
paying our troops or paying our veterans, who have honorably served our 
country and have earned their benefits.
  Second, our Republican colleagues propose under this bill to borrow 
new money to pay for previously borrowed money and to say that the 
previously borrowed money won't count on the books. Borrowing money off 
the books to cover debt sounds a lot like a Ponzi scheme.
  This is simply default by another name, bringing our economy closer 
to the brink. Maybe some people in this Chamber have forgotten 2011. 
When the Republicans brought us to the brink of default in 2011, the 
stock market plunged and the S&P downgraded our credit rating for the 
first time in our Nation's history.
  In 2013, our Republican colleagues proposed default threats, and the 
government shutdown that followed cost us 120,000 jobs and $24 billion 
in slow GDP growth just as the economy was taking hold.
  The Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Lew, said in a letter last 
week: ``There is no way to predict the irreparable damage that default 
would have on global financial markets and the American people.''
  Madam Speaker, you wouldn't constantly run your small business on the 
edge of default. So why would Republicans try to run the largest 
economy in the world this way?
  We need to move forward. We have 8 days. Let us defeat this bill and 
get our real work done.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Speaker, my colleague from Maryland made the comment just a 
moment ago of the ``responsibility caucus,'' that he would like to see 
more of that.
  What I would submit to everybody in this Chamber is that, ultimately, 
what my colleague from California's bill is all about is, indeed, just 
that because, if you think about it, we really are living in an age of 
default.
  Laurence Kotlikoff, from Boston University, has said that, in a thing 
called generational accounting, the imputed cost of governing--the 
imputed cost for a child born in America today in terms of future costs 
all in--is about 80 percent.
  Eighty percent is not all that far from a thing called slavery if you 
have to be indentured to the Federal Government for the preponderance 
of your life and your life's work. What this is ultimately about is 
defusing that bomb.
  Erskine Bowles was the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton. He 
ran a commission that looked at the way our Federal Government spent 
money. He said that what we have before us is the most predictable 
financial crisis in the history of man and that it is but 10 years 
off--roughly, 10 years off.
  So, as we have a legitimate debate--and we will have a legitimate 
debate between Republicans and Democrats and Independents and all of us 
as Americans in where we go next--what this does is defuse that bomb of 
a train wreck with regard to international and national credit markets 
as we have that debate, and that is a very good thing.
  This bill is about drawing a line as we have deadlines that come and 
go with this debate. It is about a tug of war that is taking place, and 
it is about saying let's step back and not risk credit markets and what 
might happen next on that front.
  Secondly, it is about simple priorities. In a family's budget, they 
differentiate between the mortgage budget and the movie budget. Not all 
government expenditure is equal.
  There is a whole host of programs in the Federal Government that make 
a lot of sense and some, frankly, that don't, some that add a lot of 
value and some that add a little bit of value. For us to say, ``I will 
tell you what. As we go through those deliberations, let's back up and 
protect the financial creditworthiness of the United States 
Government,'' it is, ultimately, a real step of responsibility.
  I commend my colleague from California for offering this bill. I 
thank him for his work to defuse a ticking time bomb in the debate that 
will take place--a ticking time bomb that will go on, nonetheless, with 
regard to what happens next with regard to the national debt.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), another distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. We are only weeks from defaulting on 
our debt, and this bill does nothing to deal with that. The bill before 
us today is, essentially, a plan for defaulting on our obligations.
  As my friend said, the Republican gentleman from Louisiana, all this 
does is prioritize our debt. If you are prioritizing your debt, by 
definition, you are defaulting. You are not paying your bills.
  This would prioritize our repayment, putting our veterans, small 
businesses, and our first responders behind foreign governments in 
regard to receiving the payment that is due to them.
  We have to pay our bills. We cannot go down this road again. We have 
seen this movie before, and it is not going to change. The last time we 
came close to defaulting on our debt, the results were terrible. In 1 
month, job growth dropped by more than 130,000 jobs. The S&P 500 tanked 
by nearly 20 percent, and our credit rating was downgraded for the 
first time in history.
  No one knows for sure what the full extent of the damage to the 
economy would be if we were to default on our debt. But, as Chairman 
Ryan said earlier, we know that it would ``freeze up our economy''--
higher interest rates for mortgages on auto loans, student loans, and 
credit cards; higher interest rates and less access to business loans 
needed to finance payrolls, building inventories, or to invest in 
equipment

[[Page 16297]]

and construction; families' retirement savings in 401(k)'s dropping as 
the stock market tanks; almost 4 million veterans not receiving 
disability benefits; and doctors, medical providers, and hospitals not 
getting their pay.
  The debt limit is not something to play around with. We simply need 
to pay our bills. Vote a resounding ``no'' on this bill, and let's pay 
our bills.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for yielding.
  I want to thank my friend from California (Mr. McClintock) for 
bringing this bill forward.
  Madam Speaker, the Default Prevention Act takes off the table the 
ability for any President to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to 
threaten default on the credit of the United States of America.
  If you think about this, we are talking about whether or not the 
United States is going to pay its bills. This should be something that 
the President--any President--should understand as a basic 
responsibility of his duty in office whether or not Congress can come 
to an agreement with the President on the debt ceiling, which, by the 
way, should be something the Speaker, the majority leader, and the 
President are directly engaged in.
  The fact that the President walked away from talks on negotiations on 
the debt ceiling tells you that he is not taking this in the serious 
way that he should. In fact, it also proves that the President wants to 
use the debt ceiling to threaten the default of the United States. That 
is irresponsible of any President. No President should have the option 
of defaulting or of even threatening default, and this bill takes 
default off the table as an option.
  Now, why would the President be opposed to that?
  I think it answers itself, Madam Speaker, because the President wants 
to threaten default and have that as a political weapon to try to scare 
the markets and to try to scare our seniors, who, by the way, are the 
largest holders of debt. Seniors shouldn't have to worry about whether 
or not that debt would be paid. Any creditor shouldn't be worried.
  If the United States is going to borrow money, we should first focus 
on getting to a balanced budget, which this President is opposed to. 
Once we get to a balanced budget, we should also be focused on making 
sure we are paying the debts that were incurred.
  The fact that the President wants to threaten default as an option 
shouldn't be available. This bill takes default off the table, and it 
makes the focus really clear that the United States is going to live 
within its means, uphold its obligations, and then go and focus on 
attacking the real root problems that got us into this debt in the 
first place.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation. 
Let's send it over to the Senate, where they should pass it on to the 
President.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 692, for we should pay our 
debts. This bill is called the Pay China First Act.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to speak on H.R. 692, the 
so-called 'Default Prevention Act of 2015,'' which would result in the 
Congress refusing to pay the financial obligations it has already 
incurred.
  This bill, which ought to be called the ``Pay China First Act,'' is 
virtually-identical to the one House Republicans brought to the floor 
in May 2013, which House Democrats unanimously opposed and which wasted 
time and taxpayer money on its consideration before pushing the nation 
to the brink of default just a few months later.
  American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which 
ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting 
the nation into default for the first time in its history.
  In 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury 
Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and 
greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable 
access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic 
growth.
  The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national 
assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present 
debt, will render it a national blessing.''
  But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit 
immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the 
creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of 
extinguishment.''
  In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from 
good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.
  H.R. 692 threatens the full faith and credit of the United States, 
costs American jobs, hurt businesses of all sizes, and does irreparable 
damage to the economy.
  It is important to note that under the economic stewardship of the 
Obama Administration, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 
17,000 for the first time ever, and unemployment has fallen to 5.1 
percent, the lowest since the Clinton Administration.
  Madam Speaker, obligations not guaranteed by H.R. 692, and therefore 
in danger of not being paid on a daily basis, include pay for active-
duty military, veterans benefits, Medicare and Medicaid payments, and 
payments to small businesses.
  In short, H.R. 692 is simply default by another name.
  Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which Congress has been 
done numerous times and was the normal process until 2011 when the 
House Republicans hijacked the process in a futile and quixotic effort 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  H.R. 692 reflects a House Republican governing philosophy that puts 
ideology over progress and partisan showmanship over common-sense 
legislating.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot continue to hold our nation hostage, 
punishing the recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who 
depend upon their benefits for economic survival.
  That is why I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that 
would provide economic stability to consumers, businesses, and 
financial organizations and certainty to capital markets.
  In contrast, the bill before us, H.R. 692, is merely a short-term 
measure with unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating 
uncertainty in the nation's fiscal system, and favors the Chinese 
government over Americans.
  My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to 
squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts 
and slashes to entitlement programs as opposed to sitting down and 
working with Democrats to come up with reasonable budget reforms which 
do not hurt seniors or the , disadvantaged.
  Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income 
for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, 
and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for 
nearly all of their income.
  Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and 
many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in 
retirement savings, pensions, and home values.
  Today, every dollar of the average Social Security retirement benefit 
of about $14,800 is absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary.
  Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our 
nation's deficit problem.
  Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited 
from borrowing.
  Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund.
  If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits 
are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own 
revenues.
  Instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, it 
is incumbent upon us on both sides of the aisle to find the common 
ground needed to put the nation on a sounder fiscal path.
  If President Obama has made clear that he remains willing to work 
with both parties in Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve 
additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, 
shared growth, and shared opportunity.
  But, as of today Madam Speaker, Congress has only two options--raise 
the debt ceiling to allow the Treasury to pay the nation's bills, or 
refuse to do so and have the nation default for the first time in 
history.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 692.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another very distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

[[Page 16298]]

  Madam Speaker, I am listening to my friend from Louisiana rewrite 
history.
  It is not the President who is threatening to default on the national 
debt. It is the Republican Congress that is refusing to do what was 
granted to every President in the past--Republican or Democrat--which 
is to deal with raising the debt ceiling, which is, after all, money we 
have already spent, money that they approved.
  They have been in charge for the last 5 years. The notion that we can 
somehow distinguish the semantics of this proposal, distinguishing 
between sovereign debt and the rest of the 80 million transactions that 
the Treasury makes every day, is lunacy.
  If you disagree with our protections to seniors, veterans, the 
military, Medicare, Medicaid, the FBI, food safety, cut them, but you 
don't. You nibble away at them. You have never offered a balanced 
budget when you have been in charge. We had balanced budgets when 
President Clinton was President. Thank you very much. Unless you assure 
everyone, nobody is protected.
  As for the notion somehow that the President walked away from the 
negotiations with Simpson-Bowles, where was Paul Ryan? I like Paul 
Ryan. Paul Ryan refused to embrace Simpson-Bowles' proposals. They 
cannot pass their vision. They want to blame the President and the 
American people.
  I would respectfully suggest that we ought to reject this fig leaf 
and get down to business: raise the debt ceiling as we have done 
repeatedly in the past for Presidents, whether they are Republicans or 
Democrats, get past the rhetoric, and then deal with structural issues 
going forward.
  Let's rebuild and renew America. Let's raise the gas tax so we can 
deal with our crumbling infrastructure, something that Ronald Reagan 
did in 1982, when we faced a deficit in the highway trust fund then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. There are simple, commonsense solutions, by the way, 
that are supported by the U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO, truckers and 
AAA, business, government, to be able to get the country moving again, 
to repair crumbling infrastructure, and not add to the deficit. One 
simple, little step--something we could do--not deal with goofy 
legislation like is offered today.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, we are asked: Why don't you just raise 
the debt limit?
  Let me again make this very clear.
  As long as we spend more than we take in, we have a responsibility to 
raise the debt limit. Republicans acknowledge that responsibility. 
Democrats acknowledge that responsibility.
  Yet, with that responsibility comes a concomitant duty to review the 
policies that are driving that debt. The Republicans acknowledge this 
responsibility. The Democrats do not. That is the fine point of the 
matter.
  That is a policy debate, and it is controversial, but that 
controversy should not roil credit markets and threaten to increase the 
cost of our borrowing.
  Given the size of the debt that we are carrying--and this 
administration has nearly doubled it by its policies--even a small 
increase in interest rates could mean a catastrophic increase in 
interest payments, and those increased interest payments in the tens--
possibly, hundreds--of billions of dollars would come at the cost of 
every other program that the Democrats cherish.
  We keep hearing about the S&P downgrading our credit rating in 2011. 
Let me remind them that, for months prior to that downgrade, the S&P 
demanded that we reduce our 10-year projected deficit by at least $4 
trillion or they would downgrade our sovereign debt. We ultimately only 
reduced it by $1.2 trillion because of the voices that we now hear 
raised against this bill, and the S&P followed through on that threat.

                              {time}  1530

  My Democratic colleagues are right, a threat not to pay interest and 
principal on our debt is the biggest threat to our credit. That is 
precisely the threat this bill takes off the table by guaranteeing our 
sovereign debt.
  My friends are correct that failure to pay our other bills would be a 
very bad thing, and it is much to be avoided. There is no dispute in 
that.
  As long as the debt limit has to be increased, there is going to be 
controversy; and that controversy, whether during Republican or 
Democratic Congresses or Republican or Democratic administrations, must 
not be allowed to provoke an increase in borrowing costs because we 
have frightened credit markets.
  This is not a threat to default. It is a promise not to default on 
the sovereign debt that we use to fund everything else that we do. My 
friends on the left make no distinction between sovereign debt and our 
other obligations. That may explain some of the reasons we are in the 
mess we are in.
  The fact is our sovereign debt is what makes it possible to pay for 
our other obligations as long as we continue to spend beyond our means. 
This measure guarantees the sovereign debt.
  The policies advocated by the opponents of this motion are precisely 
the policies that have caused our country to wander now through 7 years 
down a dark road of debt, doubt, despair, and economic malaise.
  It is time for a new morning in America, and that begins with 
guaranteeing the sovereign debt of this Nation. I ask for your support 
for this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask the Speaker how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Kansas has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this unquestionably is one of the most 
dangerous bills that we will be considering in this session of Congress 
because this gives this body permission, for the very first time in our 
Nation's history, to default on our financial obligations.
  They claim that they are splitting the baby here by paying 
bondholders only. One of the largest bondholders we have, of course, is 
China, so this is a pay China first bill.
  I have a feeling that the financial markets, the investors, and the 
credit rating agencies will view this for what it is however: a default 
is a default is a default.
  A great nation like the United States of America should pay our 
bills. We should pay our bills.
  Now, no one can stand here or sit here today with complete certainty 
and tell us what the market reaction would be if we start defaulting on 
any financial obligations we have as a nation, and that is really the 
point. Why would we even take that chance? Why would we take a chance 
of a downgrade to our credit, of an increase in interest rates which 
would impact everyone, from small businesses to families to farmers? It 
would drive up borrowing costs, which would act as a brake on economic 
activity and the job growth we have right now because we have never 
done this before. That is the danger that this legislation sets up.
  If my friends on the other side are so concerned about debt and 
overspending, then perhaps they ought not have supported legislation 
this year alone--bills that they have passed--that would increase our 
national debt by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years because you 
refused to pay for the tax cuts or the spending increases that were in 
that legislation through offsets in the budget. That may come as news 
or surprise to the other side, but the Congressional Budget Office 
score is $1.5 trillion of new debt over 10 years based on legislation 
you supported: repealing SGR, $141 billion; permanent expensing, $380 
billion; get rid of the estate tax, another $180 billion, and others. 
It adds up to 1.5.
  So if there is so much concern about excess spending and debt and 
what it is

[[Page 16299]]

doing to our economy, then maybe we ought to look at ourselves first 
and the action that is being taken on this House floor.
  We should not go down this path. We should stop creating the 
uncertainty and dysfunction coming out of Washington and give the 
economy a chance to recover.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), vice chair of our Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Pay 
China First Act. We should call it, in my opinion, Put America Last Act 
because that is exactly what this does. This bill will codify into law 
a new low. It will ensure U.S. taxpayers are forced to pay China and 
other regimes as well as foreign banks first. That means we will pay 
China before we pay veterans, before we pay for Medicare to cover our 
seniors, and before we pay our enlisted troops bravely serving 
overseas. It means we are going to pay these guys before we pay these 
guys. We are going to pay these guys before we pay these guys.
  Even Chairman Ryan, in a memo to House Republican colleagues, 
acknowledges that, in fact, China and other foreign debt holders will 
be paid before Medicare, before our elderly receive their checks, and 
before our troops receive their salaries.
  This whole bill is a sign of misplaced priorities. There are 
countless issues that Americans have called on us to address that we 
need to tackle to ensure this country remains healthy and strong, yet 
this is a bill the Republicans have chosen to bring to the floor. This 
is a bill that you have chosen to bring to the floor.
  At least now we know. We know this Congress is not serious about 
paying our Nation's bills because, under this bill, we resort to having 
the U.S. file, in essence, a bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy and 
walking away from debt obligations may work for Donald Trump, but it 
doesn't work for middle class Americans. Average Americans who work 
hard to pay their bills and live up to their financial obligations--and 
that includes American veterans and seniors--the Republicans would have 
waiting in line for their VA benefits behind Chinese bankers.
  I cannot support a measure that puts China above our veterans, above 
our seniors, and above our servicemembers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, if you ask the American people, ``Who 
should be paid first, these guys or these guys?'' I suggest they would 
agree with us. These guys should get paid first.
  Oppose this Pay China First Act, and let's keep America first.
  Let me also add this, Madam Speaker.
  Have you ever heard of dine and ditch? This is the biggest dine and 
ditch I have ever heard of. When I was a kid, some of my friends wanted 
to go to restaurants, eat as much as they could, and then run out 
before they paid their bill, and I would never let them do that. I felt 
it was immoral. That is exactly what we are suggesting we do today.
  Who got stuck paying for that bill? The waitress. Who is the waitress 
in this case? The American people. The American people, they get stuck 
when you dine and ditch on them. Even suggesting for a moment that we 
may not pay our debt and that we may default sends the wrong message to 
America. It sends the wrong message to the world.
  Defeat this measure.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another very distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Pay China First Act. I am truly shocked that the 
Republican leadership is advancing a bill that approves America 
defaulting on its debt.
  This is a dangerous action that jeopardizes the full faith and credit 
of our Nation. It also jeopardizes the well-being of millions of our 
most vulnerable citizens.
  I cannot support a bill that would tell my constituents that repaying 
our debt to foreign countries is more important than paying their 
salaries for military service or paying their disability benefits or 
providing them student loans.
  How can I tell small businesses in Illinois that repaying our debt to 
a foreign government is more important than paying them for providing 
goods and services to our government? How can I tell Illinois doctors 
and hospitals that we can pay China for lending us money, but we cannot 
pay them for taking care of our elderly?
  The Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the 2013 debt limit 
standoff and shutdown cost us 120,000 jobs, and the GAO estimated that 
it resulted in $70 million in increased borrowing cost on securities 
issued during the last crisis.
  The 2013 debt limit fiasco already damaged our economic recovery, yet 
the Republican leadership insists yet again on a path to harm our 
national economy and well-being simply for political posturing.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this shameful bill that says that debt 
to foreign countries is more important than our citizens.
  We should protect our economy. Pass a clean bill to raise our debt 
ceiling.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I know that this great Hall has become 
a national gallery for hyperbole, but I think the opponents of this 
measure have taken it to a whole new level. Pay China first, what 
xenophobic nonsense.
  China holds about 7 percent of our debt. Most of our debt is owed to 
Americans, much of it in pension funds and debts to Social Security 
pensioners.
  If we don't maintain our credit, we can't meet any of our other 
obligations, including our troops in the field. And if there is even a 
suggestion that our sovereign debt is not absolutely secure, we could 
see a spike in interest costs that will take money away from the very 
programs that the Democrats say they are trying to defend. That is the 
reality of it.
  This is a question over whether we should guarantee the sovereign 
debt of the United States, and I would ask again: Why is it and how is 
it that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle can get wildly 
enthusiastic about taxpayers being forced to guarantee loans to foreign 
corporations, foreign governments, or domestic special interests and 
yet not be willing to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United 
States simply by allowing the Treasury Secretary to continue to borrow 
to meet our interest and principal payments if we should ever reach a 
point where the debt limit has been reached?
  It is the debate over the debt limit that tends to roil markets. We 
are going to meet our debt obligations, but that debate that is 
required to review the policies that are driving our debt is what roils 
those markets.
  This calms that debate. This assures everyone who makes loans to the 
Federal Government that their loans are secure. This keeps our interest 
costs down, and it guarantees the credit of the United States that is 
necessary to meet all of our other obligations.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, as I have no further speakers, 
and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is an amazing debate. The gentleman from 
California talks about guaranteeing. So you guarantee payments to 
foreign debt holders. You won't guarantee payments to our veterans or 
to kids with school lunches. You won't guarantee payments to people who 
are doing medical research. You won't guarantee that.

[[Page 16300]]

  So here is the problem: you are proceeding on a very partisan basis 
on a bill that is going nowhere.
  You say we need to raise the debt ceiling. We will, and we are going 
to do it long before there is any consideration of the details about 
which you speak.

                              {time}  1545

  You talk about the need to control spending. We are going to pass a 
debt ceiling. The disturbing thing is you come here on a partisan basis 
when there is a crying need for bipartisanship. The only way the debt 
ceiling can be raised is bipartisan, and you come here today strictly 
partisan.
  That is a bad omen because, in addition to the debt ceiling, there is 
the continuing resolution. We have also the Medicare premium issue that 
looms in a few days. We have a highway bill that looms in a few days. 
The only way they are going to be resolved is on a bipartisan basis. 
You come here with a bill that won't get, I think, a single Democratic 
vote, and you know it, and yet your leadership sanctions you to do 
this.
  What does that mean for the future? It is deeply troubling. This is 
demagoguery. It is an effort maybe to gain a few more Republican votes, 
but this is too important for that. It is not policy, as I said before. 
It is a ploy. When it comes to issues like this, it should be beyond 
that kind of gamesmanship.
  In this sense, it is kind of sad you are doing this. It raises 
questions as to where your leadership is going to take this institution 
in the future, when already on your side the public has such deep 
disbelief in what you are doing. It is too late to ask you to pull 
back. I urged that to your leadership some time ago. I guess we are 
going to go forth. It is a frightful mistake to be doing it this way.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that remarks 
in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the 
second person.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Congress still has a great deal of work to do to rein in spending. 
While conversations to reduce Federal spending continue, we must also 
continue to pay down our existing debt. The Default Prevention Act 
before us today provides a responsible way to deal with our debt crisis 
and protect the full faith and credit of the United States.
  As we all know, if the U.S. defaulted on a debt payment, it would do 
serious harm to the economy and to the hardworking Americans who make 
this country great. This bill ensures that, even if the debt limit is 
reached, the U.S. Treasury would not default on our existing 
obligations to pay down the debt.
  Again, this legislation does not increase the debt limit. Instead, it 
actually prevents the Treasury from issuing new debt to pay for any new 
spending unless Congress passes a law to increase the debt limit, a 
conversation for another day.
  This bill, guaranteeing our debt, makes it possible to pay all the 
bills that the minority claims to want paid. This bill takes the 
important step of ensuring that Social Security benefits are paid in 
full and on time. This legislation is a commonsense measure that will 
protect our Nation's credit and integrity.
  Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 692, 
the so-called Default Prevention Act.
  Raising the national debt limit is a basic responsibility of 
government which ensures America will be able to pay its bills. If we 
do not raise the debt limit, our nation will default for the first time 
in its history. Americans' retirement savings will plunge, and interest 
rates for mortgages, student loans, credit cards, and car payments will 
skyrocket.
  That is why the American people and the American economy need a clean 
debt limit extension bill that meets all of our financial obligations, 
not just a few of them. Sadly, the Majority party's Default Prevention 
Act does not meet this basic standard.
  Their bill would guarantee payments above the debt limit to bond 
holders in China and other foreign countries, without consideration for 
meeting our obligations to the American people, including troops, 
veterans, and small businesses. That is irresponsible and wrong.
  Taking care of our veterans, troops, and small businesses should be 
our priority, not guaranteeing payments to China and our other bond 
holders. This legislation is the Majority's cynical attempt to pass a 
debt limit bill and say the House is being responsible. The truth is it 
is not an honest attempt to address the debt limit. The Majority's bill 
is a sham. Our nation will be in default if we miss any payment for any 
reason. And the Majority knows the bill will not become law, because 
the President will veto it if it reaches his desk.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this pointless Default Prevention Act, 
and-pass a clean debt limit extension bill that fulfills our 
obligations to the American, people, avoids economic catastrophe, and 
truly honors the full faith and credit of the United States.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, Congress should be discussing how to pay 
its obligations in a responsible manner, which is why I will oppose 
H.R. 692. This legislation would irresponsibly result in the payment of 
some obligations but not others. Importantly, this bill could result in 
payments going to China, but not to active-duty military, veterans, 
national security, and other important obligations.
  Instead of spending time on H.R. 692, which is likely to be vetoed, 
Congress should be working to raise the debt ceiling in a way that will 
prevent a default. Raising the debt ceiling permits payment of 
obligations already incurred. If we are unable to raise the debt 
ceiling by November 3rd, the Treasury will not be able to meet its 
obligations and the nation's credit rating would be in peril. The 
result would be devastating to our economic recovery.
  We can quickly put an end to this unnecessary crisis and the 
uncertainty it creates. Members of Congress can and must work together 
to prevent the United States from a catastrophic default, starting with 
a responsible approach to debt payment. Again, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting no on H.R. 692.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 480, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________