Ranking Member Espaillat Statement at the Full Committee Markup of the Fiscal Year 2026 Legislative Branch Funding Bill

Congressman Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13), Ranking Member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the full committee's markup of the fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch bill:

-As Prepared For Delivery-

Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro and Chairman Valadao for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2025 Legislative Branch bill.

I, like many elected officials in Congress and across the nation, are concerned about member safety. My prayers continue for the families and friends of Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman, and her husband, Mark Hortman, as well as Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. 

Mr. Chairman, Member threats are on the rise. The Capitol Police is reporting 7,230 threat assessment cases so far for this calendar year. This total is on pace to far exceed the 2024 total of 9,474 case numbers. 

Due to the rise of threats and political violence in our country, we must prioritize the safety and well-being of Members and their families. I look forward to working across the aisle to work towards this goal.

Turning to the bill, thank you to the Leg Branch staff, Faye Cobb, Lori Rowley, April Lyman, and my Legislative Director, Nia Thomas, for their hard work.

As you noted, the bill before us today, excluding the Senate items, contains $5 billion, which is $272 million, or 5 percent less than the fiscal year 2025 enacted levels and $1.3 billion below the fiscal year 2026 request. 

The bill continues to fund essential agencies like the Capitol Police and supports some modernization, infrastructure, and security initiatives. 

However, this bill has many problems.

It contains unnecessary, harmful policy riders that annihilate diversity programs, undermine LGBTQ+ rights, and exclude essential environmental effort provisions.

Additionally, this bill reduces the funding for the Government Accountability Office by almost 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, your committee webpage says these cuts are necessary to “curtail the agency’s self-directed, liberal initiatives”. I disagree. 

This is about the GAO having nearly 40 open investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding money we, in this Committee, previously appropriated. 

Supporting the Administration's actions that contravene the rule of law means the Committee compromises its integrity and undermines public trust in its capacity to uphold justice. 

It is our job to fund the federal government, and it is the GAO’s job to ensure the funding is spent as we, the Congress, intended.

With this cut, 2,200 jobs will be lost. In addition, Congress will forgo tens of billions in cost savings that result from GAO’s work each year. 

If efficiency is the goal of both the GAO and of the administration, then how does this action, as well as preventing the GAO to bring civil action under the Impoundment Act, make sense? 

Mr. Chairman, does the Library of Congress deserve a 10 percent cut? Did the administration ask you to cut this Agency because they disallowed DOGE’s access? 

The Library of Congress is a Legislative Branch agency, and DOGE has no business trying to gain access to our computer systems. This is not only a separation of power concern, it is unlawful. We cannot relinquish our ability to govern our own agencies.

If we are not going to cede the power of the purse of the Executive Branch and not protect our own agencies, why are we here, Mr. Chairman? What is the point of the Appropriations Committee.

Because there are too many concerns looming, not enough funding available, and many requests still not considered, and I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I yield back.

###