On the recordOctober 26, 2017
I thank the gentleman for that answer. Perhaps now he knows why I asked the first two questions. Apparently, it is not the debt that is of concern, because if the debt were of concern, the $17 billion would be of concern. That was put in the bill, as the gentleman knows, to try to pay for, as we paid for every nickel of the Affordable Care Act, and that was one of the larger pay-fors. Now, many Members on your side of the aisle don't like that pay-for, and many Members on my side of the aisle don't like that pay-for. That pay-for said that we are going to decide, if we are exceeding expenditure caps, what needs to be cut. As the gentleman knows, that board has never been appointed. But if it had been appointed, we would have had 30 days--30 legislative days or calendar days--30 calendar days in which to say, no, we don't agree with that. So the representatives of the people would have had that. But my point is we are selective in what we want to pay for, and I think that is a concern certainly to me, and I am sure it is to others. And the gentleman said: Of course, it is offset. The gentleman, here, says this is not offset. Can I ask the gentleman, why is this not offset? Why is this $17 billion apparently not a worry for the debt and the other dollars for children are necessary to be offset? I yield to my friend. Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the roundabout way of trying to get around why you are not involved in the CHIP program, but let me explain very easily.





