Hoyer Remarks on Ending the COLA Freeze for Members of Congress During Appropriations Markup
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered remarks in response in support of an amendment to bring an end to the freeze of Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLA) for Members of Congress at the House Appropriations Full Committee Markup of the FY26 Legislative Branch Bill markup. Below is a video and transcript of his remarks:
Click here to watch a full video of his remarks:
"I generally try to support righteous amendments, and so I compelled to support this amendment. Mr. Clyde, I've always impressed how much research you do – you with me? I'm complimenting you. (laughter erupts across the room) I know, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is distracting, I understand that (more laughter), but the fact of the matter is, you always do your research and I wish the research would make the difference, but we know it doesn't.
"This is about politics. This is about fear of the public thinking that we have our hand in the cookie jar. Let me suggest to you, the more times we – and this will be the 16th time – we stop putting the hand in the cookie jar, the [objective] of the reform in 1989 was to make sure that members weren't doing that, because you're absolutely right. I never took payment for speeches. I thought that was a not too well-designed bribe, but I have always supported making sure that at least we stayed even. That's all this COLA is, this is not a raise. Your purchasing power if you were here as long as the distinguished gentleman, former Chairman, Mr. Rogers and I have been here, has been reduced about 45% since 2009. Now you've noticed your grocery prices haven't been frozen, your rent hasn't been frozen here or at home – now maybe your mortgage has been frozen because you've had it for a long time.
"But the fact of the matter is two things are going to occur, first of all, people won't be able to run for Congress. Now, I want to tell the public, who presumably may be watching this, that I believe a large number of Members on the other side of the aisle from me support this COLA adjustment. Why? Because they've told me so. Now I was the number two leader for 20 years, and I have not kept track of the number of Members from across the aisle who came to me and said, ‘You're going to be able to take care of this this year?’ And very frankly, for a lot of years I did, not unilaterally, however, with Mr. Blunt, Mr. Delay, with Mr. Cantor, with other leaders in your party.
“We agreed that not having a COLA, making Members lose purchasing power, frankly, was not a good thing for us to do so that Members could stay as the '89 reform meant them to be: independent and not required to seek other forms of income, legally or illegally. And I am so pleased that Mr. Clyde, I have an amendment to do the same thing.
“I'm not going to offer it because we're going to resolve it on this issue. Now, Mr. Valadao, I understand your problem. So we understand one another. I'm going to be honest. I tell people on my side, ‘If you've got a tough race, don't vote for this.’ And the reason we've been able to do it, both sides did that. Mr. Cantor, Mr. Blunt, you had 40-30% of your people who didn't ever vote for this. Why? Because we know it can be demagogued and we know it is demagogued. So, I tell people on my side, do not vote for this, because it will be a big issue in your campaign.
“But there are a majority on both sides whom that will not affect, not because we don't stand for election, because I've been for this since the day I got here, and I'm here now in my 23rd term so what we're going to decide is a political question of whether we have the courage and the honesty, the intellectual honesty not to come to Hoyer or any other leader in the House and say, ‘boy, I hope you can get this done. I can't vote for it, of course, but –’ that's what this issue is about, and I understand some of you have tough issues.
“Frankly, both sides go after the moderates every year. It's why we have become more and more polarized. But this is something that we ought to do if we have self-respect for ourselves, for our institution and respect for our voters who themselves want a COLA. And if they're retired, you damn well know you better have that COLA for Social Security or you're in trouble. Why? Because they know if they don't get that COLA adjustment, they lose standard of living. Why? Because prices go up. But if you are on a fixed income, and I know I've run out of time again. Now I will tell you, I hope I take my side. I can support this, but we're not going to go empty into this dark night if you're not there with us, I yield back.”