Search

Search bills, members, committees and pages...

Sign In

S.Hrg.119-216

U.S. Senate•Senate Government Operations Committee•Oct 23, 2025

Summary

S.Hrg.119-216 is a hearing titled NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST, CHARLES ARRINGTON, JOHN CUONG TRUONG, ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, STEPHEN F. RICKARD, WILLIAM KIRK, HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND PLATTE MORING, held by the Senate Government Operations Committee on Oct 23, 2025. It was a meeting in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 342.

Record

S.Hrg.119-216 has its transcript and 1 document on the record.

The meeting's own record, with its video, documents and witnesses, is at Hearings to examine the nominations of Edward Forst, of Florida, to be Administrator of General Services, Charles Arrington, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term expiring July 1, 2030, John Cuong Truong, Elana S. Suttenberg, and Stephen F. Rickard, each to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, William Kirk, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Small Business Administration, Anthony D'Esposito, of New York, to be Inspector General, Department of Labor, and Platte Moring, of South Carolina, to be Inspector General, Department of Defense..

Transcript

The transcript runs to 1,485 lines and 76,778 characters, as the Government Publishing Office printed it.

senate-hearing-62164.txt
1[Senate Hearing 119-216]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-21656                      NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,7                 CHARLES ARRINGTON, JOHN CUONG TRUONG,8                ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, STEPHEN F. RICKARD,9        WILLIAM KIRK, HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND PLATTE MORING1011=======================================================================1213                                HEARING1415                               before the1617                              COMMITTEE ON18               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS19                          UNITED STATES SENATE2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION2425                               ----------2627                            OCTOBER 23, 20252829                               ----------3031        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3233                       Printed for the use of the34        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs3536    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738                                                        S. Hrg. 119-2163940                      NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,41                 CHARLES ARRINGTON, JOHN CUONG TRUONG,42                ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, STEPHEN F. RICKARD,43        WILLIAM KIRK, HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND PLATTE MORING4445=======================================================================4647                                HEARING4849                               before the5051                              COMMITTEE ON52               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS53                          UNITED STATES SENATE5455                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS5657                             FIRST SESSION5859                               __________6061        NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL62       SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES ARRINGTON TO BE A MEMBER,63         FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, JOHN CUONG TROUNG,64      ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, AND STEPHEN F. RICKARD TO BE ASSOCIATE65        JUDGES, DC SUPERIOR COURT, WILLIAM KIRK TO BE INSPECTOR66              GENERAL, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,67          THE HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL,68      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND PLATTE MORING TO BE INSPECTOR69                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE7071                               __________7273                            OCTOBER 23, 20257475        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov7677                       Printed for the use of the78        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs7980     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]8182                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE838462-164 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 20268586        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS8788                     RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman89RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan90JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire91RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut92JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania93BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey94JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona95ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan9697                William E. Henderson III, Staff Director98                  Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel99                      Andrew J. Hopkins,  Counsel100               Olivia Naughton, Professional Staff Member101               David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director102     Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security103              Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel104                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk105                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk106107                            C O N T E N T S108109                                 ------110Opening statements:111                                                                   Page112    Senator Paul.................................................     1113    Senator Peters...............................................     2114    Senator Lankford.............................................     3115    Senator Moreno...............................................     8116    Senator Slotkin..............................................    10117    Senator Ernst................................................    11118    Senator Blumenthal...........................................    13119    Senator Moody................................................    15120    Senator Hassan...............................................    16121    Senator Hawley...............................................    19122Prepared statements:123    Senator Peters...............................................    25124    Senator Hagerty..............................................    27125126                               WITNESSES127                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025128129Edward Forst to be Administrator, General Services Administration130    Prepared statement...........................................    29131    Biographical and professional information....................    33132    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    47133    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    60134    Supplemental pre-hearing questions...........................    78135    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    93136Charles Arrington to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations137  Authority138    Prepared statement...........................................   112139    Biographical and professional information....................   114140    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   132141    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   135142    Supplemental pre-hearing questions...........................   147143    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   155144John Coung Troung to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court145    Prepared statement...........................................   165146    Biographical and professional information....................   166147    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   189148Elana S. Suttenberg to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court149    Prepared statement...........................................   191150    Biographical and professional information....................   192151    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   221152Stephen F. Rickard to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court153    Prepared statement...........................................   223154    Biographical and professional information....................   224155    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   247156William Kirk to be Inspector General, U.S. Small Business157  Administration158    Biographical and professional information....................   249159    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   268160    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   272161Hon. Anthony D'Esposito to be Inspector General, U.S. Department162  of Labor163    Prepared statement...........................................   283164    Biographical and professional information....................   285165    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   312166    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   315167Platte Moring to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense168    Prepared statement...........................................   327169    Biographical and professional information....................   329170    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   347171    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   350172173                                APPENDIX174175Pictures submitted by Senator Hawley.............................   363176Small Business Website Flyer.....................................   365177Materials submitted regarding Mr. D'Esposito.....................   366178Statement submitted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in179  Washington.....................................................   372180181                      NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,182                           CHARLES ARRINGTON,183                           JOHN CUONG TRUONG,184                          ELANA S. SUTTENBERG,185                   STEPHEN F. RICKARD, WILLIAM KIRK,186                      HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND187                             PLATTE MORING188189                              ----------190191                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025192193                                     U.S. Senate,194                           Committee on Homeland Security195                                  and Governmental Affairs,196                                                    Washington, DC.197    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room198SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair199of the Committee, presiding.200    Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Lankford, Rick Scott,201Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal,202Fetterman, and Slotkin.203204               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL205206    Chairman Paul. The hearing will come to order. Today the207Committee is excited to meet eight nominees. They will be208Edward Forst, to be the Administrator of the General Services209Administration (GSA); Charles Arrington, to be a Member of the210Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); John Truong, to be an211Associate Judge (AJ) in the D.C. Superior Court; Elana212Suttenberg, to be an Associate Judge on the Superior Court;213Stephen Rickard, also to be an Associate Judge on the D.C.214Superior Court; William Kirk, to be Inspector General (IG) of215the Small Business Administration (SBA); Anthony D'Esposito, to216be the Inspector General of the Department of Labor (DOL); and217last but not least, Platte Moring, to be Inspector General for218the Department of Defense (DOD).219    The witnesses' written statements have been submitted for220the record, and I ask unanimous consent (UC) to submit letters221of support that have been received for the nominees.222    In the interest of time I will forego opening remarks, but223I will recognize Ranking Member Peters at this time.224225             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\226227    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of228the nominees, and congratulations on your nominations.229---------------------------------------------------------------------------230    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the231Appendix on page 25.232---------------------------------------------------------------------------233    I would like to start with the nomination that we are not234considering today. I am glad that Paul Ingrassia's nomination235to lead the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has been withdrawn.236The racist messages Mr. Ingrassia reportedly sent in a private237chat are absolutely disgusting. Mr. Ingrassia has said that he238is being smeared unfairly and those messages lack context.239    But let's be clear. There is no context that makes the use240of racial slurs OK. Even without these messages, we also have241the hundreds of racist, sexist, and antisemitic statements by242Mr. Ingrassia, that he has made publicly in his short career.243His clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric, along244with his complete lack of any relevant experience, is wholly245disqualifying. Paul Ingrassia never should have been nominated246for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence, I247think, just exemplifies the Trump administration's outright248contempt for independent oversight.249    Since taking office, this Administration has attacked every250key institution charged with rooting out government waste,251fraud, and abuse. In January, President Trump illegally fired25218 inspectors general without any explanation to Congress, and253dismissed another IG last week, again without the legally254required justification.255    Last month, the Administration withheld funding for the256inspector general community, literally shutting down online257portals for whistleblowers to report corruption, fraud, or258wasteful spending. When Congress pushed back, a spokesperson259for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not have a260good answer.261    The President has fired top officials at the Office of262Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB),263agencies charged with protecting whistleblowers who expose264waste, fraud, and abuse. This Administration has repeatedly265attacked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office266(GAO), just last month saying it ``should not exist.''267Government accountability should not exist, in the President's268words.269    These are the agencies that Congress created to hold the270President and the Executive Branch accountable, to ensure that271the Federal Government is indeed serving the American people272and not the whims of a pocketbooks of the President or his273political cronies.274    To the three inspector general nominees here today, I am275concerned about your ability to conduct effective oversight276given the President's attacks on IG independence. Congressman277D'Esposito, in particular, you have made no effort to address278concerns that you are a partisan operative. You have even279submitted an opening statement to this Committee that includes280a pledge to carry out the President's agenda as an Inspector281General. This betrays a very deep misunderstanding of the role282of what an IG actually is, to say nothing of the laundry list283of misconduct allegations that has been made against you in284your career.285    To the other nominees, I also have concerns and questions286about the important roles you have been nominated for.287Unfortunately, a hearing with eight nominees and five minutes288for questions severely limits Members' abilities to get answers289to important questions and to have meaningful exchanges, and it290certainly limits public transparency into the Committee's291nominations process, which I am sure was the intent of the292Chair.293    Still, I want to thank all of your nominees for being here294today, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.295    Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security296and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in297witnesses. Will the nominees please stand and raise your right298hand.299    Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this300Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but301the truth, so help you, God?302    Mr. Forst. I do.303    Mr. Arrington. I do.304    Mr. Truong. I do.305    Ms. Suttenberg. I do.306    Mr. Rickard. I do.307    Mr. Kirk. I do.308    Mr. D'Esposito. I do.309    Mr. Moring. I do.310    Chairman Paul. Thank you. It is the standard practice of311the Committee for the Chair to ask the nominees the following312question. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any313request or summons to appear and testify before any duly314constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?315    Why don't we just go down the list. Mr. Forst?316    Mr. Forst. I do.317    Chairman Paul. Mr. Arrington?318    Mr. Arrington. I do.319    Chairman Paul. Mr. Truong?320    Mr. Truong. I do.321    Chairman Paul. Ms. Suttenberg?322    Ms. Suttenberg. I do.323    Chairman Paul. Mr. Rickard?324    Mr. Rickard. I do.325    Chairman Paul. Mr. Kirk?326    Mr. Kirk. I do.327    Chairman Paul. Mr. D'Esposito?328    Mr. D'Esposito. I do.329    Chairman Paul. And Mr. Moring?330    Mr. Moring. I do.331    Chairman Paul. Thank you. I will now have a round of 5-332minute questions, and we will start with Senator Lankford.333334             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD335336    Senator Lankford. Thank you to all of you for being here337and for going through this process. It is a long, arduous338process with lots of paperwork and lots of questions that has339actually led you to this moment. Then we are going to340expeditiously work through this process on the hearing, as341well, today.342    So a question for a few of you. Mr. Forst, let me start343with you on this. GSA is exceptionally important to us in many344ways in getting information details, but one of those deals345with real property. The Federal Government owns way too much346property, but it has been a challenge for us to be able to sell347property off or to be able to make it available and to be able348to get it off our books. With $38 trillion in total debt as a349nation now, we have to stop owning things we do not use. what350are your thoughts and your plans for how to be able to help351with the real property disposition?352    Mr. Forst. Senator Lankford, thank you very much for the353question, and I appreciate the question, and I actually think354the career staff at GSA appreciates that question and the355motivation behind it, as well. I think, as the Committee is356aware, the Federal Government controls, through GSA, about3578,800 properties, of which we own 1,500 properties. I think the358analysis for the proper footprint of the government extends359also beyond what we own into what we lease, as well.360    What is the right size? What is right mission of the real361estate for the government of today and the government of362tomorrow, and tomorrow's tomorrow?363    We have 350 million feet of real estate that we control.364That is gargantuan, and it probably makes us the biggest real365estate owner. And GSA does not control all of the Federal real366estate in that way. We have so many constituents of interest.367We have return-to-work orders in place. There is a tremendous368amount of work to do in terms of looking at the stock of real369estate, but also the condition of the real estate that we own.370    When we are a tenant in someone else's property and they371are our landlord, we are very demanding in terms of the372condition of the property, so it meets the needs on an ongoing373basis. When we are the landlord and we own the property, I374would say we are somewhat deficient.375    Senator Lankford. Yes.376    Mr. Forst. In the GSA annual report we show $24 billion of377deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance is a very gentle378term for, I will say, delinquent maintenance in that way, of379which $6 billion is urgently needed, it says, over one to two380years. I think we have to take whole stock of exactly what we381own, the mission of each one of our constituent clients, and382determine the appropriate way to move forward.383    I will say one more thing, if I may.384    Senator Lankford. Yes.385    Mr. Forst. GSA is the tip of the spear in Federal real386estate. We cannot actually return to work all of our people387into our building because about 25 percent of it has been388deemed uninhabitable. That is because we have deferred389maintenance.390    Senator Lankford. We have got to get that off the roll, and391I would tell you, one of the areas I have worked on for years392is dealing with areas like our border facilities. The Customs393and Border Protection (CBP) owns some of those border394facilities. GSA owns some of those. The GSA ones are not being395well maintained, and sometimes they are not designed well on396it, so we are not getting the cooperation we need in some397areas. So that will be one of the areas I will come back to you398later, to be able to figure out how do we actually manage that399in the days ahead. I appreciate your engagement on this.400    For the IGs that are here, thanks for stepping up. It is a401thankless, difficult job, to say the least. You are selected by402the President, you are confirmed by the Congress, but you are403the eyes and ears for the American people in each of these404agencies, and there is an expectation. You work independently,405because the American taxpayer expects somebody to be able to be406in the agency, to be able to look around and give407recommendations how to be more efficient, where there is not408only inefficiency but illegal activity or inappropriate409activity.410    There is an expectation--you work for the American people--411to be effective in those roles. So thanks for stepping up to be412able to do that. I really do appreciate you taking on that413task.414    For the folks that are in the court, that are stepping in415for the D.C. Court, Mr. Truong, you are one of the few people416on a planet with six billion people that was nominated by417President Trump, nominated in by President Biden, and now you418are here a third time for a third nomination from President419Trump. I bet there are not many people on this planet that have420been nominated three times, and twice by Trump and once by421Biden, on that. So you have been in this Committee before and422you know full well what I am going to ask you, because I have423asked you before on it.424    How are you going to run your court in such a way that425people get faster access to justice? We have got 12 openings426that are there in the court. There is an enormous backlog in427the D.C. Court. People expect justice. But they also expect428when they get to court they are going to actually have their429day in court and not have an attorney ask for a continuance,430and they never actually get their day in court. How are you431going to run your court in such a way that people get justice?432    Mr. Truong. Senator, your question crystallizes the issues,433two critical issues confronting the Superior Court, and that is434the backlog, which then affects how people get access to435justice. If I were to be fortunate enough to be confirmed----436    Senator Lankford. Finally.437    Mr. Truong [continuing]. Finally, I will make sure that I438am prepared every day to rule on the cases in front of me. I439would make sure that I communicate effectively to the parties,440litigants appearing before me. One of those communications441would be in the form of standing orders to articulate the442expectations to the parties that when they appear for a443hearing, for case status, or for a trial, that they are444prepared to go.445    Those expectations would be set forth clearly. I believe446that is one of the tools I intend to use in order to assure447that cases are moved quickly so that people who appear before448me have a day in court.449    Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. Thank you to all of450your families that are here, as well, and those that are451watching. Thanks for going through this. Mr. Chair, thank you.452    Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.453    Senator Peters. Mr. Forst, as we discussed yesterday, and454it was good spending time with you in the office yesterday, but455as we were talking about yesterday, GSA recently confirmed with456my staff that the agency plans to move forward with disposing457the Hart-Doyle-Inouye property in Battle Creek, Michigan. More458than 1,200 Michiganders work at this facility. It is a critical459national defense and security installation, working with the460Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as well as the Federal461Protective Service (FPS).462    For the record, we talked about this yesterday, but for the463record will you ensure that GSA provides the resources to keep464all of these critical national defense and security jobs in465Battle Creek?466    Mr. Forst. Senator Peters, by the way, thank you for our467time yesterday and thank you for the question. And in my times468yesterday with you, Senator Hassan, and Senator Kim, one common469theme that came across is for me and for the agency to be good470listeners, and to be constituent seekers, and making sure that471we take in all the available information and input from those472stakeholders and those stakeholders that have something to473bring forward to the table, and make sure we come to an agreed474decision on each of these.475    There is the mathematics behind the real estate issue, and476there is getting to the right place on the real estate issue.477What I can commit to you is the agency will work feverishly478with you and other constituents to make sure we get to the479proper decision, and we all understand the basis of those480decisions.481    Senator Peters. So your commitment, if confirmed, you will482sit down with my team and we will make sure that the folks in483those facilities know that this is a thoughtful decision and484one that is something that is necessary?485    Mr. Forst. You have my 100 percent commitment, sir.486    Senator Peters. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Forst, when we487met yesterday you also said that the GSA has a unique488procurement responsibility because a stamp of approval of GSA489signals governmentwide acceptance, and I certainly agree with490this, which is why I am concerned with GSA's recent procurement491of Elon Musk's xAI chatbot, Grok. This deal occurred following492reports that Grok had produced racist and antisemitic content493widely across Musk's social media platform.494    Do you share my concerns that the procurement of this495artificial intelligence (AI) system, which has actively496produced antisemitic and racist content, is that something that497concerns you?498    Mr. Forst. Sir, I have not been a part of the decision to499bring in any of these particular AI technologies.500    Senator Peters. I am not asking about your decision. Are501you concerned about it?502    Mr. Forst. To the extent that it is as you described it503would concern me, and I would like to learn more, sir.504    Senator Peters. What kind of signal do you think that sends505to the country, that that is what we have procured?506    Mr. Forst. If that is, in fact, what we have, then that is507not, I think, the signal we would necessarily want to send to508the country. No, sir.509    Senator Peters. So if confirmed, would you commit to510pausing the use of that system until we receive documentation511about the details of the procurement, including whether the GSA512actually performed a comprehensive risk assessment prior to----513    Mr. Forst. I think my commitment to you is I will meet with514the team and I will understand the process used in selecting515them, and I will make sure that we have all the facts. If there516was incompleteness to the process, that we will rectify that.517    Senator Peters. OK. You stand by that you are concerned518about it, and you will look at this.519    Mr. Forst. If you are concerned, it is a concern I would520share, sir.521    Senator Peters. But it seems to be a general concern,522antisemitic discussions and others----523    Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.524    Senator Peters [continuing]. And it should be a concern to525not just me.526    Mr. Forst. No ambiguity about that.527    Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.528    President Trump violated the Inspector General Act (IGA)529when he fired 19 inspectors general, the most recent just over530a week ago, without submitting to Congress the required 30-day531notification and some sort of substantive rationale. I know532that is a high bar for the President--you have to have a533rationale for what you do. But Mr. Moring, yes or no, do you534acknowledge that the President violated the requirements of the535IG Act?536    Mr. Moring. That matter is currently under litigation.537    Senator Peters. It is just a yes-or-no question. Do you538think he violated it?539    Mr. Moring. I can't answer that question, Senator.540    Senator Peters. You can't answer it. A pretty541straightforward requirement. If you are nominated to be an IG,542a pretty straightforward requirement, you are not going to be543able to make decisions on? Are you going to wait to see what544the President tells you, or how are you going to make those545kinds of decisions?546    Mr. Moring. I am going to make independent decisions based547on my training and experience.548    Senator Peters. So reading something straightforward that549you are required a 30-day notification with substantive550rationale, that is not straightforward enough? What else would551you need to make able to make that decision?552    Mr. Moring. It is a straightforward question, but the553answer is not straightforward. The Solicitor General took the554position that the President was within his rights to take the555actions that he did.556    Senator Peters. So we know the judge voted, a rule that he557did violate the IG Act. It is just a question of back pay right558now.559    Mr. D'Esposito, can you answer our question yes or no?560    Mr. D'Esposito. I believe that it is under review by the561Supreme Court and that as of right now none of the inspectors562general report back to the job, so they believe President Trump563made the correct decision.564    Senator Peters. OK. Well, you are following the talking.565You said you want to faithfully execute the President's agenda,566so you are showing us that. Mr. Kirk?567    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As my568colleagues have mentioned here, the matter is pending569litigation and I do not think it lends itself to----570    Senator Peters. Yes, OK. You will all be very effective in571moving the President's agenda, as an IG, but clearly we know572what you are about. Not one of you could give me a straight573answer acknowledging this very basic fact. Not even the574President denies that he did not send notice to the Congress,575so it is clear, I do not think either--a few more seconds--it576is clear that you folks do not understand the role of an IG,577and that basically disqualifies you.578    Chairman Paul. I think the sarcasm toward the witnesses is579uncalled for. I mean, you are asking them to make a decision on580the Supreme Court. It is a complicated decision. A lot of the581decisions on hiring and firing have come down on the582President's side. Frankly, these are open-ended questions. To583say that you have concluded, and you are smarter than the584Supreme Court, you are welcome to say that. But putting people585on the spot and saying, ``Oh, you have no opinion. You are just586going to do whatever you want,'' these are very complicated587decisions and I do not think any of us really know exactly how588the Supreme Court is going to rule on this. I do not like the589sarcasm.590    Senator Peters. Mr. Chair, this is not before the Supreme591Court.592    Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.593    Senator Peters. Let's at least have facts, Mr. Chair.594    Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.595    Senator Peters. It is not before the Supreme Court. Are we596just making up facts as we go along here?597    Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.598    Senator Peters. Oh my God.599600              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO601602    Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We talked a little603bit this morning about text messages. I thought that was604interesting because I have never seen a witness who was not605here questioned. But I thought in the spirit of text messages606we should read some. It talks about a text message that was607sent out. It says, ``If you guys die before me I will go to608their funerals to piss on their graves. Send them out awash in609something.'' Then it talks about how they want Jennifer610Gilbert's children to die in front of her so she can feel pain.611That is the candidate for Attorney General (AG) from the State612of Virginia. Would you, Senator Peters, condemn that text613message, asking their children to die in front of the parents,614and he can go to their funeral and piss on their graves?615    Senator Peters. I do not believe I am the witness here616today. Thank you.617    Senator Moreno. OK. I just want to point out for the record618that the bar is so low that you cannot condemn somebody wanting619political violence. OK. So let's move on.620    To Mr. Kirk, Mr. D'Esposito, Mr. Moring, when you make621decisions to investigate issues, do you go on X, read a post,622and then make a decision based on that? Do you like read623Newsweek and say, ``Oh, my God, this article says that,'' or,624starting with you, Mr. Kirk, do you actually perform625investigations?626    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The role of627the Inspector General is to work with facts.628    Senator Moreno. What if you read the article on Facebook?629That is not enough?630    Mr. Kirk. Certainly not enough, no.631    Senator Moreno. How about if Manu Raju asks you a question632in the hallway on the way out? Is that enough to make a633decision?634    Mr. Kirk. Pardon me?635    Senator Moreno. If a cable news network (CNN) reporter asks636you a question on the way out, is that enough just to make a637decision? My point is, can you walk us through what you638actually do to investigate these matters?639    Mr. Kirk. Sure. Inspectors General offices have significant640numbers of staff of investigators, auditors, and their role is641to collect the information from the agency, to be able to make642a decision based upon----643    Senator Moreno. OK. Does that take five minutes? Six644minutes? How long does that take?645    Mr. Kirk. It takes months.646    Senator Moreno. Months.647    Mr. Kirk. Months.648    Senator Moreno. OK. So not three minutes in questioning.649Mr. D'Esposito, anything different?650    Mr. D'Esposito. I agree, and I spent my adult career as an651investigator in the New York City Police Department (NYCPD). I652worked for a few different mayors, definitely I do not agree653with their political ideologies--but never once did I start an654investigation, conduct an investigation, or make an arrest655based on someone's political ideologies.656    Senator Moreno. Because you follow the law. That is your657job, right?658    Mr. D'Esposito. Correct. I live the oath that I took and659swore and that badge that I wore on my chest.660    Senator Moreno. And you are going to find the facts, no661matter where they take you, to make certain that you do your662job that you are sworn to do. Correct?663    Mr. D'Esposito. Absolutely. Exhaust every lead necessary.664    Senator Moreno. Mr. Moring, how about you? Obviously the665Department of War is a huge agency, and you are going to be666charged with a big responsibility. You are going to study these667things thoroughly, make sure to only look at facts, not668hyperbole or innuendo. Is that correct?669    Mr. Moring. That is correct, Senator. At the Department,670sources of investigation come from many places. It can come671from Senators, Congressmen, the hotline, whistleblower672complaints. There are procedures that are already in place in673writing at the Department which guide the initiation of674investigations.675    Senator Moreno. You swore to uphold the Constitution and676the law and to follow it, no matter where it goes. Correct?677    Mr. Moring. Yes, I do, Senator.678    Senator Moreno. To the Judges, D.C. obviously has a lot679going on here, and I assume the same standard holds for the680three of you, that you will follow the law, that you will681interpret the Constitution as written?682    Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.683    Ms. Suttenberg. Yes, Senator.684    Mr. Truong. Yes, Senator.685    Senator Moreno. Perfect. Mr. Forst, I will actually give686back time and just give you one piece of advice--sell, baby,687sell. With that I will turn it back over to the Chair.688    Mr. Forst. Thank you, Senator.689    Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.690691              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN692693    Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks to all of you for being694here. Mr. Moring, Platte. Sorry, I know your first name. Mr.695Moring, thank you. Can you tell me, is the Department of696Defense Inspector General, the position you are nominated for,697you just went through that you would uphold the U.S.698Constitution. You would swear an oath to the Constitution of699the United States. Right? Correct?700    Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator.701    Senator Slotkin. And to uphold the laws of the United702States. You are a lawyer, but IGs do not have to be lawyers.703But both as an IG but as a person, a lawyer, uphold the laws of704the United States.705    Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator.706    Senator Slotkin. I am concerned about, in September, the707President issued an Executive Order (EO) tasking the Department708of Justice (DOJ) to come up with a list of domestic terrorist709organizations (DTO). He gave a very broad definition of what710domestic terrorist organizations were, including descriptors711like anti-Christian, different views on the family, religion,712and morality. There are also reports that the Department of713Defense is participating in an interagency weaponization714working group, made up of people from Department of Defense,715from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of716Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the717Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to go after the President's718adversaries or enemies.719    As the Inspector General you would be expected to flag720issues of law and investigate deeply problematic issues. If a721Department of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), like the722National Security Agency (NSA) the service intelligence723agencies, Army intel, were to target American citizens for724their political views and collect on American citizens, is that725in violation of the law?726    Mr. Moring. Senator, the answer to your question has to do727with the role of the Inspector General. I believe that the728general counsel at the Department would be better able to729address your question.730    Senator Slotkin. But this is just about law. I understand731that the IG is not the one making those legal announcements.732But if you learned that intelligence agencies were wiretapping733American citizens because of their political views, is that in734violation of U.S. law?735    Mr. Moring. The Department IG only conducts oversight with736regard to the Department. If your question is limited to the737Department, it is possible that the Inspector General may have738a role in determining whether or not those agencies followed739their own policies----740    Senator Slotkin. But this is an issue of law. So let's say741the National Security Agency, which does wiretaps, and I am a742former CIA officer. I worked with them all the time. Let's say743the President of the United States tasked them to wiretap744people who were attending the No Kings rally in Detroit,745Michigan. Would that be legal for the intelligence community746(IC), the DOD intelligence community, to target American747citizens for their political views?748    Mr. Moring. Senator, I appreciate your sentiment and your749concern, but it is not within the remit of the Inspector750General to make a legal determination----751    Senator Slotkin. But it is law, right? I think, in general,752and I would hope this would be a bipartisan thing, that the753idea that our intelligence community, of which I was a proud754member, would be turned against American citizens because of755their alleged political views is as fundamental to who we are756as anything that I have seen come before this Committee. I want757you to say, separate from what your remit would be, I want you758to say publicly that we are not going to turn agencies, like759the CIA and the NSA and all these things, against the American760people. You are the last line of defense. You are an IG, quite761literally, overseeing conduct of the Department.762    If the intelligence agencies were asked to surveil American763citizens, what would you do? Would you open an investigation,764at a minimum? Would you push back at all? Or is it just OK now?765God forbid, right, God forbid that this is just kind of the way766we are going to be. The President says these are domestic767terrorist organizations, and so we are now surveilling American768citizens because of their views? I would hope my Republican769colleagues would find that just as repugnant as me.770    I want to hear you say that you know that that is against771not only the law but our values.772    Mr. Moring. Senator, I really appreciate your concern, and773my sentiments are with you. But it is not my role to have774personal opinions. I am guided by the facts and the application775of the law to the facts.776    Senator Slotkin. I would just say it should not be about777your role. It should be about who we are as American citizens,778and what we do with our government when we turn it against779people. I yield back.780    Chairman Paul. I am perfectly willing to answer the781question. You are exactly right. You should not be targeted for782your religious beliefs. But it is a little easier for me. I am783my own agent. I can say what I want. I was elected. They are784going to be working for people, and it is a little harder for785them to have a philosophical discussion with you.786    But I will tell you that your questions are hypothetical787ones, but there is a real question. It was called Arctic Frost,788and it was administered by the Biden administration, where nine789Members of Congress were targeted with unconstitutional790warrants. They were given subpoenas for their geolocation--791according to the Carpenter case. It was decided by the Supreme792Court--your geolocation. You do have an ownership or a privacy793interest in that. They were illegally surveilled, nine Members794of Congress. If we are looking for bipartisan criticism of795surveillance run amok, that is the place we might want to796start. Senator Ernst.797798               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST799800    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I wholeheartedly801agree. I want to thank all of you for being here today, and I802am just going to double down on my colleague from Oklahoma, his803sentiment, when we are looking at GSA and making sure that we804are divesting of all of the real estate that sits out there,805unused, across the great United States. I have spent a lot of806time digging into that area. I chair the Senate Department of807Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus, and have done my808``squeal'' work in the U.S. Senate for a number of years. I do809appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma addressing that issue.810    There is another issue that I will continue on with, Mr.811Forst, and this is the area of waste that I have been exposing812through the misuse of government credit cards. In March, the813Federal Government held about 4.6 million active purchase cards814and accounts with $40 billion of spending on those cards last815year. In recent years, this has included over 11,000 separate816transactions at vendors or merchants that are known as high-817risk merchants. Those high-risk merchants include casinos,818nightclubs, bars, places of that nature, and I cannot really819see where we can justify government credit cards being used in820those types of establishments. I do not know what kind of821government work is going on there.822    Mr. Forst, there are some definite improvements to GSA's823Smart Pay program that I think we could implement. But what are824you thinking we could do to make that situation better and825monitor those cards better for our taxpayers?826    Mr. Forst. Senator Ernst, thank you very much for the827question. Thanks for your support on the disposition of Federal828real estate, as well. We will need your help.829    In terms of credit cards, in terms of other procurement830activities that flow through the agency, there is a tremendous831volume in dollars and numbers of transactions, and we have to832do our best to make sure we have our arms around that data, and833then how we scrub that data and how we look at what is834appropriate and not what people want to do but what people835really need to do with those kinds of programs.836    I think this also falls into the category, Senator, of risk837management, which is for all these activities what are risks838that we identify, which ones can we absorb, which ones can we839mitigate, and which ones should we eliminate, and not be840surprised because there are risks that hit us that we had not841thought about.842    Your thoughts, your papers, meetings with all the members843of the Senate, we are very open to taking suggestions and844learning from this, and applying that and providing updates, as845well, on the progress we make toward that. It is not a one-and-846done exercise. It is something we have to be robust about from847the start, and we have to continue, maintain, and feed that848process.849    Senator Ernst. No, absolutely, and I look forward to850working with you on that. We have also identified a number of851former Federal employees that have left government employment852and take their credit cards with them, and they still use them.853I have introduced the Deactivating and Eliminating Cards Linked854to Inactive or Nonexistent Employees (DECLINE) Act, and with855that we would ensure that charge cards are promptly deactivated856once those employees are leaving government service. I have857talked to other vendors in the credit card space and they have858talked about various trigger mechanisms where if you use those859cards at those high-risk merchants they would be declined on860those sites.861    I think there are a number of easy ways that we can wrap862our arms around this and make sure that taxpayer dollars are863not being spent for personnel that should not be spending those864dollars and maybe inappropriately using those dollars.865    Mr. Moring, in the minute that I have left, I have866introduced the Cost Openness and Spending Transparency (COST)867Act that would require a price tag to be attached to all868Pentagon research and development (R&D) projects supported with869taxpayer dollars, and it was included in the Fiscal Year (FY)8702021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). So it is law871now. However, despite that, the Pentagon has not implemented872it, so they are not following the law. It makes no sense that873the Pentagon is often ignoring the various threats that are874posed out there by collaborating with, or even financing875research and institutions with links to China. Then they over-876classify documents and not disclose that spending information,877to keep the taxpayers in the dark.878    Will the Office of Inspector General (OIG) make it a879priority to ensure China is getting less access to Pentagon880secrets and American citizens are getting more access?881    Mr. Moring. Senator, if confirmed, the Department's882Inspector General will exercise oversight over the policy883implementation that you have incorporated into statute.884    Senator Ernst. Thank you. It is law, so we are very hopeful885that we can followup on that.886    I thank you, Mr. Chair.887    Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.888889            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL890891    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for892your being here today and your commitment to public service.893    Mr. D'Esposito, the position of Inspector General should be894above politics, should be insulated from politics, should be895independent and objective, and that goes for all of the896positions of Inspector General. I am eager to have your897commitment that you will not be a candidate for Congress in the898Fourth Congressional District in the next election.899    Mr. D'Esposito. Right now, Senator, my focus is on being900confirmed to serve as Inspector General of the United States901Labor Department.902    Senator Blumenthal. I know that is your focus now, as you903sit here, but I am asking for your commitment that you won't be904a candidate.905    Mr. D'Esposito. Senator, with all due respect, as of today906my focus is to be confirmed as Inspector General of the U.S.907Labor Department.908    Senator Blumenthal. Well, here is why----909    Mr. D'Esposito. Having discussions about the future are910questions that I cannot answer.911    Senator Blumenthal. Here is why I am concerned about it. I912have before me ads that were placed, apparently on behalf of913D'Esposito for Congress.\1\ That is your campaign committee, is914it not?915---------------------------------------------------------------------------916    \1\The flyer submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the917Appendix on page 365.918---------------------------------------------------------------------------919    Mr. D'Esposito. It is.920    Senator Blumenthal. They are screenshots from your website921on October 22, 2025. I am holding them up. You can probably see922them and you are familiar with them, I am sure. They are your923website. They are for your congressional committee, which924apparently is ongoing.925    Mr. D'Esposito. My website is still active, but there has926not been any fundraising or anything done with the committee.927    Senator Blumenthal. On September 19th, in the issue of 5928Towns Jewish Times, you placed an ad, or your congressional929committee did, on the occasion of Rosh Hashanah, wishing930everyone Shana Tova. That ad was on behalf of your campaign931committee, was it not?932    Mr. D'Esposito. I will have to check with my campaign.933    Senator Blumenthal. You will have to check with your934campaign?935    It is here. How can you sit here and tell us that your936focus is only on the IG position when you have an active937campaign committee, you are placing ads, you are offering938people lawn signs? That sounds like a campaign to me.939    Mr. D'Esposito. The campaign website that is still active940is not being updated. It is not being used. There is no941fundraising being done. There is not an active campaign being--942--943    Senator Blumenthal. When is the last contribution made to944your campaign committee?945    Mr. D'Esposito. I would assume before the New Year.946    Senator Blumenthal. Before the New Year?947    Mr. D'Esposito. I am not certain, but I have not done any948active fundraising at all.949    Senator Blumenthal. But you are still accept campaign950contributions, are you not?951    Mr. D'Esposito. I am not accepting them.952    Senator Blumenthal. You are turning them away?953    Mr. D'Esposito. I am not aware of any campaign954contributions.955    Senator Blumenthal. In an interview in Newsday, on October9568th, you were asked whether you would be a candidate, and you957declined to say. Correct?958    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.959    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, there was an Ethics960Committee investigation ongoing when you were defeated and left961Congress last time. Was that Ethics Committee investigation962concluded?963    Mr. D'Esposito. It was dismissed, yes.964    Senator Blumenthal. It was dismissed?965    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.966    Senator Blumenthal. It was concluded and the complaints967were dismissed.968    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.969    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask Mr. Kirk. The SBA, on its970website, had a special announcement which consisted, in part,971of saying--and I am holding it up, screenshot--``Senate972Democrats voted to block a clean Federal funding bill, H.R.9735371, leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the974U.S. Small Business Administration from serving America's 36975million small businesses.'' That is a clear violation of the976Hatch Act and the anti-lobbying law. Would you agree?977    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The Hatch978Act is overseen by the Office of Special Counsel. It is not979within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General.980    Senator Blumenthal. I am asking you to investigate an981illegality within the SBA. Will you commit to do it?982    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator. I will commit to working with983you and your staff to investigate concerns and allegations, and984if I am privileged to take on that role as the Inspector985General I will work with you and your staff.986    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.987    Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.988989               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY990991    Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Paul, and thank you to992the nominees for being here today. I appreciate it.993    Oftentimes in these hearings we have a lot of, I will call994them drive-by insults and accusations with very little995followup. I think it is important that we give nominees a996chance to either explain a prior statement or give an opinion997as to how they would proceed if they are, in fact, confirmed. I998want to start with Mr. D'Esposito.999    It was said by the Ranking Member that in your opening1000statement that you said that you would work to implement1001President Trump's agenda, or something to that extent. I1002actually went back and pulled your opening statement, because1003that concerned me. An inspector general very much ensures that1004the agency is working above board and in compliance with laws1005and ethics, et cetera, et cetera, and that would be a primary1006responsibility.1007    I actually went back and looked at your opening statement,1008and you did, in fact, commend President Trump for making1009something clear, that government exists to serve the people,1010not itself. That is one of the reasons I agreed to come up here1011and be a Senator. I am one of the newest United States1012Senators, and I believe wholly that people need to have a trust1013that their government, that D.C., is working in their interest,1014that it is not working to promote itself or the people within1015it.1016    I sat here shocked as I listened to another colleague say,1017``Will you make sure that this government doesn't turn on its1018own people?'' I am thinking to myself, since I have been here1019as a United States Senator, we have discovered, under the last1020administration, we were surveilling United States Senators, and1021in fact, turning agencies, I would submit in many instances1022unjustifiably so, against people who may have actually1023questioned our election integrity. As a people, we should have1024the right to ask questions. It is our government.1025    I commend you for saying and reaffirming that government1026exists to serve the people, not itself, and I saw, within your1027opening statement, that you said that you want to put that1028mission forward, that government exists to serve the people1029through the work of the Office of Inspector General.1030    Just briefly, because I do not have a lot of time, would1031you like to comment on that and clarify what might have been1032accused against you?1033    Mr. D'Esposito. First of all, Senator, thank you for the1034question, and it was one that was also referenced in our first1035hearing in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)1036Committee, and that is President Trump has a vision to rein in1037the Golden Age of the American worker. I do not believe that is1038partisan. I do not believe creating the fiercest, strongest1039military is partisan. I think that all should be American, and1040that is what I believe in working hard.1041    Senator Moody. As Inspector General, do you believe it is1042your job to ensure that the people working for that agency are1043indeed following the ethical guidelines and the law of the1044United States and certainly the agency?1045    Mr. D'Esposito. Absolutely. It is same oath that I took1046when I was a New York City police detective I take very1047seriously, as did my grandfather, who fought in World War II,1048and my dad, who actually fought in Vietnam.1049    Senator Moody. Thank you. I now want to turn to, along that1050line of making sure this government is working for the people,1051I commend this President, all of the people he has put in place1052to return this to a nation under a rule of law, indeed, the law1053of the people. The law of the United States is the people's1054law. Though we want to create all of these narratives around1055the United States and what is playing out on television (TV),1056what looks like cesspools of chaos, whether it is Portland or1057Chicago, as people are coming out and sometimes obstructing or1058attacking or assaulting Federal law enforcement officers that1059are trying to comply with the people's law, it is as if they1060are giving the finger to the people's will. I commend the1061agencies for surging resources to restore law and order and1062indeed safety in our communities.1063    But law enforcement officers can only do so much, and for1064our system to work we have to have good judges that will follow1065the law and that will not, in some aim to either satisfy some1066personal bias or to achieve some radical agenda of partisan1067ends, ignore the law. We have to have judges in order to have1068security to take what is presented to them and then follow the1069law, and when appropriate under the law, impose a sentence for1070a crime that is committed when there is a conviction.1071    And real quick to our judges, our associate judges that are1072nominated, will you commit to following the people's law and1073making sure that the judicial branch can be respected, because1074you are judges applying the law, as the people intended, and1075not subverting the integrity of the judicial institution by1076implementing your own will?1077    I will just go down the line. We will start with you, Mr.1078Trong.1079    Mr. Truong. I do.1080    Senator Moody. Ms. Suttenberg?1081    Ms. Suttenberg. Yes, Senator.1082    Senator Moody. Mr. Richard?1083    Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.1084    Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1085    Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.10861087              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN10881089    Senator Hassan. Thank you, Chair Paul, and thank you,1090Ranking Member Peters, for holding this important hearing. To1091all of the nominees, thank you for your willingness to serve.1092Congratulations to your families, as well.1093    I will followup where Senator Moody was going. It is a1094question I now ask in every hearing involving nominations and1095it is a straightforward one. Representative D'Esposito, I have1096asked you this and other questions at your prior hearing, but I1097would like you to please answer again today with the other1098nominees.1099    For Mr. Forst, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Moring, and1100Representative D'Esposito, if directed by the President to take1101action that would break the law, would you follow the law or1102follow the President's directive? Mr. Moring, we will start1103with you.1104    Mr. Moring. Senator, I do not think I would ever be put in1105that position.1106    Senator Hassan. Let us be clear before everybody else says1107that. It is a simple answer. Will you follow the law if you are1108put in that position? Senator Peters referenced the decision1109about the illegal firings of the IGs that this President did,1110and I just want to be clear because a number of you kind of1111hesitated and said it is under appeal. It is not. The court1112found that that was an illegal firing. There is nothing under1113appeal because the court also decided not to reinstate the IGs1114who were illegally fired because he concluded, or the judge1115concluded, that the President would then fire them under the1116legal process. The only thing at issue is back pay.1117    That is an example of this President of the United States1118breaking the law. If you are instructed to break the law by the1119President, will you follow the law or follow the President's1120directive? Mr. Moring.1121    Mr. Moring. Senator, realizing that is a hypothetical, I1122will never do anything in my office, if confirmed, that is1123illegal or immoral.1124    Senator Hassan. So you will follow the law. I want a yes or1125no.1126    Mr. Moring. I will follow the law.1127    Senator Hassan. Now, Representative D'Esposito.1128    Mr. D'Esposito. I believe President Trump is a man of1129integrity, and I don't believe that his or his Administration1130would ever ask us to break, or me, to break the law.1131    Senator Hassan. Are you going to follow the law?1132    Mr. D'Esposito. I would always, as I have done in my1133career, follow the law.1134    Senator Hassan. Your answer defies the factual record. But1135Mr. Kirk, go ahead.1136    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I also1137believe I would not be asked that question or put in that1138position, but I can always commit to, as my colleagues have1139stated, to follow the law, the statutory obligations of the1140Inspector General to abide by the law, to fulfill the statute--1141--1142    Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. Mr. Arrington?1143    Mr. Arrington. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I1144again pose that it would be a hypothetical, but as a veteran I1145have sworn an oath to the Constitution, and I would follow that1146no matter who told me to do an unlawful thing.1147    Senator Hassan. Mr. Forst.1148    Mr. Forst. Again, Senator, as we spoke yesterday, I do not1149expect to be asked that, but I will take an oath of office like1150you, and I will follow that oath of office.1151    Senator Hassan. Let's just be clear. There is plenty on the1152factual record of this President of the United States not only1153breaking the law but instructing other people to break the law.1154So you might want to brush up on that.1155    Now, let me turn to the nominees for judicial seats. Mr.1156Truong, Ms. Suttenberg, and Mr. Rickard, do you commit to1157applying the law fairly and independently, without favor or1158bias, and to reject any attempts by outside parties to1159influence you and the decisions you make? We will start with1160you, Mr. Truong.1161    Mr. Truong. Senator, if I have the privilege to be1162confirmed as a judge, I am duty-bound to follow the law and the1163precedent set by----1164    Senator Hassan. Just a yes or no, because I am running out1165of time. Yes?1166    Mr. Truong. Yes.1167    Senator Hassan. Ms. Suttenberg?1168    Ms. Suttenberg. Yes.1169    Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.1170    Senator Hassan. Thank you. Now, to Mr. Kirk, Representative1171D'Esposito, and Mr. Moring, if confirmed, will you work in a1172transparent way to investigate conflicts of interest involving1173government officials? Again, yes or no. Mr. Kirk?1174    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I am1175committed to following----1176    Senator Hassan. I need a yes or no because I am running out1177of time. Yes?1178    Mr. Kirk. I will investigate conflicts of interest and1179appropriate matters----1180    Senator Hassan. And will you do it in a transparent way?1181Yes or no.1182    Mr. Kirk. In a transparent way, objective and independent.1183    Senator Hassan. Representative D'Esposito?1184    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.1185    Senator Hassan. Mr. Moring?1186    Mr. Moring. Yes, I will, Senator.1187    Senator Hassan. Gentlemen, could we have a little bit of1188order on the dais please? Thank you, the three of you, for your1189commitment. Recent reporting states that the President has two1190claims pending against the Department of Justice, in which he1191is asking the Department, part of his government staff with his1192handpicked people, to approve a payment of $230 million in1193taxpayer money to him. Even the President himself recognizes1194how absurd and inappropriate this conflict of interest is. This1195is what President Trump said--``I am the one that makes the1196decision, right? And you know, that decision would have to go1197across my desk, and it's awfully strange to make a decision1198where I am paying myself.''1199    If confirmed as an Inspector General, if the President1200tried to authorize payments of taxpayer money to himself from1201your agency, would you investigate that as a conflict of1202interest? Mr. Kirk.1203    Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I would, as1204I had mentioned previously, under my statutory responsibility,1205investigate all allegations of violations of law and conflicts1206of interest.1207    Senator Hassan. Do you consider the President of the United1208States directing an agency that reports to him, or that he1209considers reporting to him, to pay him money a potential1210conflict of interest, or an actual conflict of interest?1211    Mr. Kirk. I am not familiar with the facts of that matter.1212I am, as I said----1213    Senator Hassan. I asked you to respond to a quote. I will1214move on to Congressman D'Esposito.1215    Mr. D'Esposito. If confirmed, I will be an independent and1216an objective oversight through audits and investigations of the1217Department of Labor.1218    Senator Hassan. If the President tried to authorize1219payments of taxpayer money to himself from your agency, would1220you investigate that as a conflict of interest? Yes or no.1221    Mr. D'Esposito. I would be an independent and objective1222oversight for audits and investigations.1223    Senator Hassan. Mr. Moring, yes or no.1224    Mr. Moring. No. The Defense Department does not conduct1225oversight of the White House.1226    Senator Hassan. That is extraordinarily disappointing.1227    Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.12281229              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY12301231    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations to1232the nominees. Thank you all for being here. I want to start1233with you, Mr. Truong, Ms. Suttenberg, and Mr. Rickard. You have1234all been nominated--so they put you all right together, right1235in the middle--you have been nominated to the D.C. Superior1236Court.1237    I just want to ask you a question or two about your1238judicial philosophy, and I want to start by referencing a1239picture that maybe will come up behind me.\1\ This was maybe a1240photo you have seen before. It is not a pleasant one. But it1241did occur right here in the district. This is Edward Coristine.1242Edward was 19 years old when this photo was taken. This is just1243from July of this year. He was a government employee at the1244time. This is in Logan Circle here in the district. He was out1245one evening, I think with his girlfriend, when he was attacked.1246He and his female friend both were attacked by a roving band of1247teenagers, who left him in this condition, beat him pretty1248badly, as you can see. He was able to get his female friend1249into the car and safe, and then turned and confronted the whole1250band of them himself. This is the condition he was left in.1251---------------------------------------------------------------------------1252    \1\ The picture referenced by Senator Hawley appears in the1253Appendix on page 363.1254---------------------------------------------------------------------------1255    It looks pretty violent to me. But when the assault1256assailants were taken before the D.C. Superior Court, the1257relevant judge, Judge Kendra Briggs, who I am sad to say was1258reported favorably out of this Committee, though, over my no1259vote, she gave the assailants zero prison time. What she said1260was the purpose of sentencing is ``not punishment''--that is a1261quote--``not punishment. It is rehabilitation.'' Apparently she1262thinks that allowing people who do that kind of thing to 19-1263year-olds, allowing them to get off without any kind of1264punishment is rehabilitative. That is its own interesting1265question.1266    But I want to ask you first, do you agree that the purpose1267of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation? I would1268like to hear from each of you on this. I think it is an1269important question. Mr. Truong, let's start with you.1270    Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. My approach to sentencing1271is to consider the presentencing report of the defendants, the1272witness victim impact statement, the community's impact1273statement, any recommendations from the prosecutors and the----1274    Senator Hawley. But what is the purpose of sentencing, in1275your words? What is your philosophy?1276    Mr. Truong. My approach to sentencing is to consider all1277the facts, apply the law, and to impose a sentence that1278reflects the seriousness of the crime.1279    Senator Hawley. Do you think that punishment is an1280appropriate aspect of sentencing?1281    Mr. Truong. That is one factor to consider within the1282context of the approach to sentencing.1283    Senator Hawley. Do you agree with Judge Biggs that the1284purpose of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation?1285    Mr. Truong. Senator, I appear in court so many times that I1286have the reflex of referring to those in the honorific title.1287    Senator, I do not have all the information that Judge1288Briggs had in front of her, and I need to be circumspect in my1289response because judicial canons counsel that as a judicial1290nominee I should refrain from commenting on issues that may1291appear before me.1292    Senator Hawley. I am not asking you to comment on this1293case. This case is over. You are not going to have this case. I1294am not asking you about her. I am asking you about you. I want1295to know what your judicial philosophy is. My question is, would1296you agree that the purpose of sentencing is not punishment but1297rehabilitation? That framing is pretty stark. Not punishment1298but rehabilitation. Do you think that is right?1299    Mr. Truong. My sentencing philosophy is to impose a1300sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes and the1301imposed consequences that are deserved within the context of1302studying the facts and applying the law to the facts.1303    Senator Hawley. OK. I wish you would be a little1304circumspect. Ms. Suttenberg, go ahead.1305    Ms. Suttenberg. Thank you, Senator. I cannot speak to that1306particular case given that there are still criminal cases1307pending. But I will say that I spent my career as a prosecutor1308fighting crime, and I am certainly committed to ensuring that1309there are accountability structures in place as a judge, both1310for juveniles and for adults.1311    When it comes to sentencing, I think that there are1312important goals of sentencing: retribution, deterrence,1313incapacitation, rehabilitation. Given the severity of the1314crime, I think you have to look to what is going to serve the1315interest of judge in any particular case, and there could be1316different goals, sort of depending on----1317    Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you this. Shouldn't keeping1318the public safe be a major goal of sentencing?1319    Ms. Suttenberg. Yes.1320    Senator Hawley. Shouldn't keeping violent offenders off of1321our streets be a goal of sentencing?1322    Ms. Suttenberg. I absolutely agree there should be.1323    Senator Hawley. OK. Good. Mr. Rickard, what about you?1324    Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator, thank you. I would follow the1325law of the District of Columbia, which requires considering a1326number of factors, including the seriousness of the offense and1327imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the1328offense and the criminal history of the offender, a sentence1329that provides sufficient deterrence, both specific deterrence1330for the individual offender and general deterrence to the1331community, and the third factor does consider rehabilitation.1332But that is just one of the three factors that has to be1333considered.1334    Senator Hawley. Last question, Mr. Chair. Do you agree that1335protecting the public and getting violent offenders off the1336streets is an important goal of sentencing?1337    Mr. Rickard. Yes. I think that is the deterrence that I1338just mentioned. Specific deterrence is making sure that someone1339who has committed a violent crime and is likely to do so again1340would not do so.1341    Senator Hawley. I will have some more questions for those1342of the rest of you on the panel. I am sure you are very1343disappointed I did not get to ask you any. Congratulations1344again on your nominations.1345    Chairman Paul. Thank you. We have had some discussion about1346the necessity for independence of particularly the Inspectors1347General, obviously of Judges, to be free of partisanship. It is1348incredibly important. I do not want to downplay that at all.1349But we also have to accept you at your word. If you say you are1350going to be impartial, we either believe you or we do not1351believe you. If they choose not to believe you, that is one1352thing, but I think your comments should be treated with1353respect.1354    I am a big fan of the inspector general program, and I will1355give you just one example of where we learned something1356incredibly important. It was from the Defense Inspector1357General. During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), it became1358aware that there was a lot of facts pointing toward that the1359virus may have come from a lab in Wuhan and not from a wet1360market, not from animals. But one of the biggest things we got1361was from a whistleblower, a lieutenant colonel, who came1362forward and he said, you know what? The people, the lab that1363was close to the wet market, where people are saying it might1364have come from, they submitted a proposal to Defense Advanced1365Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018, called DEFUSE, and it1366looked a lot like what the virus became. They were talking1367about creating a virus with a certain cleavage site to enter1368the cells, which was unusual in coronaviruses, and then, lo and1369behold, the same people proposing that two years before did not1370get the money, but then this research project was hidden. But1371people said it was a smoking gun and it pointed heavily toward1372the lab in Wuhan. We only heard about it through an Inspector1373General.1374    It is important that that Inspector General did not look at1375it as, oh, I am going to protect President Trump, or I am going1376to protect President Biden. It is the truth, so it is1377incredibly important. I hope all of you will take that into1378account.1379    Same with the judges. We have gone through four years of1380lawfare, where President Trump has been attacked repeatedly,1381where they have changed the law so they can go after him, where1382they have said, well, there was a statute of limitations on the1383claim of the one woman in New York. They just changed the1384statute of limitations. They took and bundled records1385complaints, and bundled 30 of them and made them all into1386felonies. They did things with the law that ultimately were1387rebuked by the public.1388    It does take a lot of gall then to have them come forward1389and lecture us and lecture Republican nominees about how you1390are going to be impartial. I want you to be, though. I do not1391want you to go back and say, oh, this is my time for1392retribution against the other side. I want you all to be bigger1393than that. There are probably very few in the Senate who are as1394ecumenical and as even-handed as I am. I have not always been1395apologizing for the President. In fact, I am one of the1396Republicans who has been unafraid to criticize the President on1397policy, more than anybody else.1398    But the thing is that we do expect that in our civil1399servants. Mr. Moring, can you comment on how you would approach1400the job as an impartial judge and as an Inspector General?1401    Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator. My background is being a law1402clerk to a Federal judge, where I had to give the Judge my best1403independent legal advice. I worked for the Department of1404Justice as a trial lawyer, investigating customs fraud, and my1405job there was to provide independent advice to the Attorney1406General with regard to those prosecutions. In my role as legal1407counsel to the General Counsel at the Department of Defense,1408again my job was to give the best independent legal advice I1409could to benefit the Department. In private practice, again I1410had to give opinions to clients that they did not want to hear.1411    I feel that this background, also my military background as1412a lieutenant colonel and having to work through the problems in1413Afghanistan, I have made a career of independent legal advice.1414    Chairman Paul. I think people in the military, particularly1415rising to that rank, have a long history in the military of1416trying to treat things objectively and not bring religion or1417politics into things.1418    Mr. D'Esposito, you have been a politician so you have seen1419both sides of it. You have seen the barbs and the unfair1420accusations, and everybody on both sides has done that. Are you1421willing and able, and will you pledge not to be a politician,1422to be an Inspector General and to evaluate things? I guess you1423said you were also a policeman?1424    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question.1425I have spent most of my adult life in the public service world.1426I am a 26-year member of the Volunteer Fire Department back1427home, where I served as chief from 2009 to 2016. I was the1428incident commander during Hurricane Sandy, and my community was1429one of the hardest hit on the East Coast.1430    When we responded to the hundreds of thousands of calls1431during that time and during my time as a firefighter and chief,1432never once did political ideology come in place. I served 161433years in the New York City Police Department, some of it as a1434cop and then promoted to detective. I left the department, or1435retired from the department with over close to 700 arrests,1436over 50 medals for meritorious and excellent police duty. I1437dismantled gangs. I took hundreds of guns off the street. I1438removed poison from communities to make them safer, made1439arrests for bribery. Never once was it politically motivated.1440    Then I came to Congress, and I was named one of the most1441bipartisan members of the 118th Congress.1442    Chairman Paul. I appreciate your service and I take you at1443your word. We will hopefully see good service from you that is1444objective.1445    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.1446    Chairman Paul. With that, that concludes our hearing.\1\1447Thank you all for coming today.\2\ The nominees have filed\3\1448responses to biographical and financial questions.\4\ They have1449answered pre-hearing questions.\5\ They have also submitted1450opening statements.\6\ Everything has been reviewed\7\ by the1451Office of Government Ethics.\8\1452---------------------------------------------------------------------------1453    \1\ The information of Mr. Forst appears in the Appendix on page145433.1455    \2\ The information of Mr. Arrington appears in the Appendix on1456page 114.1457    \3\ The information of Mr. Troung appears in the Appendix on page1458166.1459    \4\ The information of Ms. Suttenberg appears in the Appendix on1460page 192.1461    \5\ The information of Mr. Rickard appears in the Appendix on page1462224.1463    \6\ The information of Mr. Kirk appears in the Appendix on page1464249.1465    \7\ The information of Mr. D'Esposito appears in the Appendix on1466page 285.1467    \8\ The information of Mr. Moring appears in the Appendix on page1468329.1469---------------------------------------------------------------------------1470    Additionally, the Committee has received letters of support1471for the nominees. All of this will be made part of the record.1472Without objection, this information will be made part of the1473hearing record, and with the exception of the nominees'1474financial data, which are on file in the Committee.1475    The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,1476October 24th. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.1477    [Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]14781479                            A P P E N D I X14801481                              ----------14821483    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14841485                                 [all]

Documents

The meeting filed 1 document.

  • Document

Source: congress.gov · LC75180