MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Steny H. Hoyer

Follow by RSS

Hoyer, a longtime Maryland Democrat, most often speaks on foreign policy and civil-rights legacy issues: he strongly supports aid to Ukraine and opposition to amendments limiting security cooperation with Israel, and he defends the Americans with Disabilities Act, which he helped enact. He frequently urges specific action—a ‘no’ vote, Senate passage of a Ukraine bill, retraction of new Justice Department guidance—and usually gives reasons for his positions, citing legislation, court rulings, and legislative history rather than attacking opponents personally. He does criticize the Trump administration’s actions directly, calling its Justice Department guidance ‘absurd,’ but generally addresses the policy rather than the person. A distinctive habit is devoting substantial floor time to tributes, thanks, and personal remembrances—honoring fallen colleagues and public servants at length—more often than most members.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
77 / 100 over 4 statements
Signal 64 / 100
Relevance 66 / 100
Reasoning 94 / 100
Respect Not scored yet
Clarity 94 / 100
Averaged over the 4 of 5 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 5

House of Representatives ·

Honoring Kenny Cox

“I am honoring my friend Kenny Cox, who died in July. He was a brave firefighter and spent 37 years leading a major firefighters union. He worked hard to protect firefighters and their families. I send my sympathy to his family.”
  • Speech in the House

    Signal 40 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Kenny Cox, who passed away in July following a battle against Parkinson’s disease. Kenny led a life defined by service, courage, and unwavering commitment to the men and women of our Nation’s firefighters and emergency medical response teams. A firefighter right out of high school, Kenny was forced into early retirement because of a midcareer injury, but Kenny couldn’t walk away from the cause he loved. For 37 years, he served in elected leadership roles in the International Association of Fire Fighters, including as its president. Kenny was the longest-serving elected official in the union’s history, recipient of the District of Columbia’s Silver Medal for Valor, and the IAFF’s unofficial press secretary. He valued service to others and love of community and country, and both of these informed his work as a firefighter and as an organizer. As I noted at the dedication ceremony naming the IAFF Local 36 building in his honor, his hallmark was a profound care for his local members, their families, and the quality of training needed to keep our communities and firefighters safe. On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus leadership, I extend my condolences to his son, Ken Jr.; his sister, Karen Hallman; and his entire family. Kenny’s wife sadly passed away after 61 years of marriage last year, and their beloved daughter, Michelle, who sang so beautifully at the annual Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service that so many Members have attended, lost her battle to cancer in 2020. May Kenny’s memory be a blessing and comfort to all who serve on the fire line and the emergency response teams.

House of Representatives ·

36th Anniversary of Ada

“I helped write the Americans with Disabilities Act 36 years ago. The Department of Justice recently said the law does not guarantee that disabled people have a right to live and get care in their own communities. That is wrong. When we wrote the law, we meant for disabled people to be fully included in their communities. The Department of Justice should take back this new guidance. The Trump administration must also stop using disability laws as an excuse to make voting harder.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my time in public service was sponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeing it through to enactment. I was honored to work closely with House and Senate colleagues, leaders like Bob Dole, Tom Harkin, Tony Coelho, Steve Bartlett, Orrin Hatch, and Ted Kennedy, just to name a few. We passed it on a bipartisan basis, and it was signed into law by President George Bush in 1990. This month, we celebrate the 36th anniversary of the ADA. In those 36 years, that law has made a transformative difference for millions of Americans. It did so not only for physical access to public and private spaces of public accommodations but also in ensuring reasonable accommodations in workplaces and nondiscrimination in every facet of American life. We have seen it strengthened through legislation like the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and through the courts with decisions like Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. That decision concerned the ADA’s nondiscrimination rule and applied it to the forced segregation of disabled people away from their communities, a historic tragedy in centuries past. The Olmstead ruling affirmed that States are required to provide disability services in the most integrated setting possible: in schools, workplaces, and even individuals’ homes. Last month, the Department of Justice issued new guidance that the ADA does not guarantee--according to them--a right to live and receive services in integrated settings. Instead, it reinterprets the Olmstead’s decision as only prohibiting States from unnecessarily institutionalizing those with disabilities without adequate justification and that it did not establish a general integration mandate. Frankly, that is absurd. Olmstead merely affirmed what Congress had clearly intended in the ADA. Unlike when we speculate on what our Founders’ intent was in paraphrasing certain parts of our Constitution, when it comes to laws enacted 36 years ago, we can go right to the source. Let me be absolutely and unambiguously clear, as the House sponsor of the ADA: An integration mandate, as outlined correctly in the Olmstead ruling, was our intent. Senators Dole, Kennedy, and Hatch may no longer be here to state it, but I am sure former Senator Harkin and former Representative Coelho, Bartlett, and others, who were involved in drafting and enacting the law, will affirm the same. Among the findings expressly listed in the text of the ADA was that, ``Society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem,’’ according to the Olmstead case. The Department of Justice is wrong and ought to retract its new guidance to States and communities. At the same time, we have also seen the Trump administration use disability rights as an excuse to undermine ballot access and trample on the Help America Vote Act, which I also had the honor of sponsoring. The same principle just outlined about Olmstead applies here as well. It was never Congress’ intent in writing the ADA that accommodating people with disabilities should be used as an excuse to limit Americans’ right to vote, just as it should not be issuing a rule penalizing Americans with disabilities for living at home with their families and caregivers and slashing Medicaid funding, upon which so many in the disability community rely. I certainly hope statements like this one--from someone who was intimately involved in the writing of the ADA and stated from the floor--will serve as a reminder of the legislative intent of the ADA and of the Congress: It is truly all about nondiscrimination, public accommodation, equal access, and, yes, integration as much as possible within communities. We cannot turn the clock back to the time before the ADA, when those with disabilities were ostracized, isolated, and locked away. I am proud of the part I played in changing that. All of us should be proud that this institution came through and delivered in both promise and practice. Let us continue to do so today.

House of Representatives ·

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027

“I want you to vote against this amendment. It hurts American security. It limits our ability to fight terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It also makes it harder to work with Israel toward a two-state peace deal, and it helps people who want to destroy Israel and kill Jewish people.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security. As Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out, if adopted, it would limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, that expressly target American citizens and military personnel. It would make it harder for America to use our relationships with Israel and regional partners to promote a negotiated two-state solution, the only realistic path to deliver on the promise of peace, security, and self-determination for both Israel and Palestine. I understand the frustration that many Members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli Government, as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two- state solution. However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those pursuing the complete elimination of Israel and those who seek the death of Jews. Madam Chair, it is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region and a vote against American security, interest, and safety. Vote ``no.’’

“We should not abandon our allies. This bill needs to stand up for democracy and fight against dictators.”
Official Congressional Record

Let us be clear: America does not abandon our allies. America does not shrink from the fight. Democracy will not yield 1 inch to tyranny. We should be saying that in this bill. I do not yield my opposition to tyranny.

“I oppose this bill because it gives no money to Ukraine. Ukraine is our ally fighting against Russia, and we must give them the resources they need to win.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, sadly, I cannot agree with Chairman Cole. This bill does not send a strong message to our friends, nor does it send an unmistakable message to our adversaries. Sadly, this bill has zero for Ukraine, our ally fighting the Russian invader. That is a grave mistake and absolutely the wrong approach. It is a dangerous signal at a time when we ought to show unwavering support for Ukraine’s defense of its homeland. Yesterday marked 40 days since the House passed the Ukraine Support Act. That bipartisan legislation would provide Ukraine with an additional $8 billion in loans for military procurement as well as $1.3 billion in direct security assistance. It also would impose new sanctions that will further erode Vladimir Putin’s ability to continue this illegal, immoral, and unjust war. Now, it is the Senate’s turn to act. Over the weekend, America lost a champion in the effort to stand with Ukraine. Senator Graham understood that America’s responsibility was to ensure that Ukraine has every resource it needs, but none in this bill. Not just to survive but to win. Senator Graham died just hours after returning from Ukraine and securing bipartisan agreement on a new punishing sanction bill. I hope that all of us in the House and Senate will honor his memory by continuing to vigorously support Ukraine. Its drone strategy is creating space on the battlefield for real movement. Something is in the air, and it is the feeling that victory is not only achievable but increasingly within reach. This bill does not send a strong message of that objective. Not the end of the beginning, but finally, hopefully, perhaps the beginning of the end. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Weber of Texas). The time of the gentleman has expired.