Steny Hoyer: “The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle. What we didn't want, what I…”

“The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle. What we didn't want, what I don't want, and you and I have discussed this, is, I'm frankly 'perplexed,' might be the word, as someone who has been in the legislative body for some 40 years; and I think the parliamentarians were accurate in their determination of germaneness, but germaneness has always meant to me in 40 years, I will tell my friend, that it is pertinent to the subject at hand. You know that when you add a PAYGO provision, which frankly you abandoned on your side in 2002, you did not want to be constrained by PAYGO. I understand why you didn't want to be constrained by PAYGO because you couldn't pay for your tax cuts. You talked about spending. We've cut revenues very deeply. There were different philosophical arguments about that; but the fact is, they were not paid for, and as a result, the deficits have in large part expanded very greatly.”