    [Senate Hearing 119-216]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-216

                          NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,
                     CHARLES ARRINGTON, JOHN CUONG TRUONG,
                    ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, STEPHEN F. RICKARD,
            WILLIAM KIRK, HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND PLATTE MORING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                OCTOBER 23, 2025

                                   ----------

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-216

                          NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,
                     CHARLES ARRINGTON, JOHN CUONG TRUONG,
                    ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, STEPHEN F. RICKARD,
            WILLIAM KIRK, HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND PLATTE MORING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

            NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL
           SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES ARRINGTON TO BE A MEMBER,
             FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, JOHN CUONG TROUNG,
          ELANA S. SUTTENBERG, AND STEPHEN F. RICKARD TO BE ASSOCIATE
            JUDGES, DC SUPERIOR COURT, WILLIAM KIRK TO BE INSPECTOR
                  GENERAL, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
              THE HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND PLATTE MORING TO BE INSPECTOR
                      GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 23, 2025

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-164 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2026

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan

                    William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
                      Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
                          Andrew J. Hopkins,  Counsel
                   Olivia Naughton, Professional Staff Member
                   David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
         Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security
                  Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Paul.................................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Lankford.............................................     3
        Senator Moreno...............................................     8
        Senator Slotkin..............................................    10
        Senator Ernst................................................    11
        Senator Blumenthal...........................................    13
        Senator Moody................................................    15
        Senator Hassan...............................................    16
        Senator Hawley...............................................    19
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Peters...............................................    25
        Senator Hagerty..............................................    27

                                   WITNESSES
                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025

    Edward Forst to be Administrator, General Services Administration
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Biographical and professional information....................    33
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    47
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    60
        Supplemental pre-hearing questions...........................    78
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    93
    Charles Arrington to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations
      Authority
        Prepared statement...........................................   112
        Biographical and professional information....................   114
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   132
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   135
        Supplemental pre-hearing questions...........................   147
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   155
    John Coung Troung to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court
        Prepared statement...........................................   165
        Biographical and professional information....................   166
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   189
    Elana S. Suttenberg to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court
        Prepared statement...........................................   191
        Biographical and professional information....................   192
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   221
    Stephen F. Rickard to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court
        Prepared statement...........................................   223
        Biographical and professional information....................   224
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   247
    William Kirk to be Inspector General, U.S. Small Business
      Administration
        Biographical and professional information....................   249
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   268
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   272
    Hon. Anthony D'Esposito to be Inspector General, U.S. Department
      of Labor
        Prepared statement...........................................   283
        Biographical and professional information....................   285
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   312
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   315
    Platte Moring to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense
        Prepared statement...........................................   327
        Biographical and professional information....................   329
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   347
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   350

                                    APPENDIX

    Pictures submitted by Senator Hawley.............................   363
    Small Business Website Flyer.....................................   365
    Materials submitted regarding Mr. D'Esposito.....................   366
    Statement submitted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
      Washington.....................................................   372

                          NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD FORST,
                               CHARLES ARRINGTON,
                               JOHN CUONG TRUONG,
                              ELANA S. SUTTENBERG,
                       STEPHEN F. RICKARD, WILLIAM KIRK,
                          HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, AND
                                 PLATTE MORING

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2025

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair
    of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Lankford, Rick Scott,
    Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal,
    Fetterman, and Slotkin.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

        Chairman Paul. The hearing will come to order. Today the
    Committee is excited to meet eight nominees. They will be
    Edward Forst, to be the Administrator of the General Services
    Administration (GSA); Charles Arrington, to be a Member of the
    Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); John Truong, to be an
    Associate Judge (AJ) in the D.C. Superior Court; Elana
    Suttenberg, to be an Associate Judge on the Superior Court;
    Stephen Rickard, also to be an Associate Judge on the D.C.
    Superior Court; William Kirk, to be Inspector General (IG) of
    the Small Business Administration (SBA); Anthony D'Esposito, to
    be the Inspector General of the Department of Labor (DOL); and
    last but not least, Platte Moring, to be Inspector General for
    the Department of Defense (DOD).
        The witnesses' written statements have been submitted for
    the record, and I ask unanimous consent (UC) to submit letters
    of support that have been received for the nominees.
        In the interest of time I will forego opening remarks, but
    I will recognize Ranking Member Peters at this time.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of
    the nominees, and congratulations on your nominations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 25.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to start with the nomination that we are not
    considering today. I am glad that Paul Ingrassia's nomination
    to lead the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has been withdrawn.
    The racist messages Mr. Ingrassia reportedly sent in a private
    chat are absolutely disgusting. Mr. Ingrassia has said that he
    is being smeared unfairly and those messages lack context.
        But let's be clear. There is no context that makes the use
    of racial slurs OK. Even without these messages, we also have
    the hundreds of racist, sexist, and antisemitic statements by
    Mr. Ingrassia, that he has made publicly in his short career.
    His clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric, along
    with his complete lack of any relevant experience, is wholly
    disqualifying. Paul Ingrassia never should have been nominated
    for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence, I
    think, just exemplifies the Trump administration's outright
    contempt for independent oversight.
        Since taking office, this Administration has attacked every
    key institution charged with rooting out government waste,
    fraud, and abuse. In January, President Trump illegally fired
    18 inspectors general without any explanation to Congress, and
    dismissed another IG last week, again without the legally
    required justification.
        Last month, the Administration withheld funding for the
    inspector general community, literally shutting down online
    portals for whistleblowers to report corruption, fraud, or
    wasteful spending. When Congress pushed back, a spokesperson
    for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not have a
    good answer.
        The President has fired top officials at the Office of
    Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB),
    agencies charged with protecting whistleblowers who expose
    waste, fraud, and abuse. This Administration has repeatedly
    attacked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office
    (GAO), just last month saying it ``should not exist.''
    Government accountability should not exist, in the President's
    words.
        These are the agencies that Congress created to hold the
    President and the Executive Branch accountable, to ensure that
    the Federal Government is indeed serving the American people
    and not the whims of a pocketbooks of the President or his
    political cronies.
        To the three inspector general nominees here today, I am
    concerned about your ability to conduct effective oversight
    given the President's attacks on IG independence. Congressman
    D'Esposito, in particular, you have made no effort to address
    concerns that you are a partisan operative. You have even
    submitted an opening statement to this Committee that includes
    a pledge to carry out the President's agenda as an Inspector
    General. This betrays a very deep misunderstanding of the role
    of what an IG actually is, to say nothing of the laundry list
    of misconduct allegations that has been made against you in
    your career.
        To the other nominees, I also have concerns and questions
    about the important roles you have been nominated for.
    Unfortunately, a hearing with eight nominees and five minutes
    for questions severely limits Members' abilities to get answers
    to important questions and to have meaningful exchanges, and it
    certainly limits public transparency into the Committee's
    nominations process, which I am sure was the intent of the
    Chair.
        Still, I want to thank all of your nominees for being here
    today, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.
        Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security
    and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
    witnesses. Will the nominees please stand and raise your right
    hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Forst. I do.
        Mr. Arrington. I do.
        Mr. Truong. I do.
        Ms. Suttenberg. I do.
        Mr. Rickard. I do.
        Mr. Kirk. I do.
        Mr. D'Esposito. I do.
        Mr. Moring. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. It is the standard practice of
    the Committee for the Chair to ask the nominees the following
    question. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any
    request or summons to appear and testify before any duly
    constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?
        Why don't we just go down the list. Mr. Forst?
        Mr. Forst. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. Arrington?
        Mr. Arrington. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. Truong?
        Mr. Truong. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Ms. Suttenberg?
        Ms. Suttenberg. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. Rickard?
        Mr. Rickard. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. Kirk?
        Mr. Kirk. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Mr. D'Esposito?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I do.
        Chairman Paul. And Mr. Moring?
        Mr. Moring. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. I will now have a round of 5-
    minute questions, and we will start with Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Thank you to all of you for being here
    and for going through this process. It is a long, arduous
    process with lots of paperwork and lots of questions that has
    actually led you to this moment. Then we are going to
    expeditiously work through this process on the hearing, as
    well, today.
        So a question for a few of you. Mr. Forst, let me start
    with you on this. GSA is exceptionally important to us in many
    ways in getting information details, but one of those deals
    with real property. The Federal Government owns way too much
    property, but it has been a challenge for us to be able to sell
    property off or to be able to make it available and to be able
    to get it off our books. With $38 trillion in total debt as a
    nation now, we have to stop owning things we do not use. what
    are your thoughts and your plans for how to be able to help
    with the real property disposition?
        Mr. Forst. Senator Lankford, thank you very much for the
    question, and I appreciate the question, and I actually think
    the career staff at GSA appreciates that question and the
    motivation behind it, as well. I think, as the Committee is
    aware, the Federal Government controls, through GSA, about
    8,800 properties, of which we own 1,500 properties. I think the
    analysis for the proper footprint of the government extends
    also beyond what we own into what we lease, as well.
        What is the right size? What is right mission of the real
    estate for the government of today and the government of
    tomorrow, and tomorrow's tomorrow?
        We have 350 million feet of real estate that we control.
    That is gargantuan, and it probably makes us the biggest real
    estate owner. And GSA does not control all of the Federal real
    estate in that way. We have so many constituents of interest.
    We have return-to-work orders in place. There is a tremendous
    amount of work to do in terms of looking at the stock of real
    estate, but also the condition of the real estate that we own.
        When we are a tenant in someone else's property and they
    are our landlord, we are very demanding in terms of the
    condition of the property, so it meets the needs on an ongoing
    basis. When we are the landlord and we own the property, I
    would say we are somewhat deficient.
        Senator Lankford. Yes.
        Mr. Forst. In the GSA annual report we show $24 billion of
    deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance is a very gentle
    term for, I will say, delinquent maintenance in that way, of
    which $6 billion is urgently needed, it says, over one to two
    years. I think we have to take whole stock of exactly what we
    own, the mission of each one of our constituent clients, and
    determine the appropriate way to move forward.
        I will say one more thing, if I may.
        Senator Lankford. Yes.
        Mr. Forst. GSA is the tip of the spear in Federal real
    estate. We cannot actually return to work all of our people
    into our building because about 25 percent of it has been
    deemed uninhabitable. That is because we have deferred
    maintenance.
        Senator Lankford. We have got to get that off the roll, and
    I would tell you, one of the areas I have worked on for years
    is dealing with areas like our border facilities. The Customs
    and Border Protection (CBP) owns some of those border
    facilities. GSA owns some of those. The GSA ones are not being
    well maintained, and sometimes they are not designed well on
    it, so we are not getting the cooperation we need in some
    areas. So that will be one of the areas I will come back to you
    later, to be able to figure out how do we actually manage that
    in the days ahead. I appreciate your engagement on this.
        For the IGs that are here, thanks for stepping up. It is a
    thankless, difficult job, to say the least. You are selected by
    the President, you are confirmed by the Congress, but you are
    the eyes and ears for the American people in each of these
    agencies, and there is an expectation. You work independently,
    because the American taxpayer expects somebody to be able to be
    in the agency, to be able to look around and give
    recommendations how to be more efficient, where there is not
    only inefficiency but illegal activity or inappropriate
    activity.
        There is an expectation--you work for the American people--
    to be effective in those roles. So thanks for stepping up to be
    able to do that. I really do appreciate you taking on that
    task.
        For the folks that are in the court, that are stepping in
    for the D.C. Court, Mr. Truong, you are one of the few people
    on a planet with six billion people that was nominated by
    President Trump, nominated in by President Biden, and now you
    are here a third time for a third nomination from President
    Trump. I bet there are not many people on this planet that have
    been nominated three times, and twice by Trump and once by
    Biden, on that. So you have been in this Committee before and
    you know full well what I am going to ask you, because I have
    asked you before on it.
        How are you going to run your court in such a way that
    people get faster access to justice? We have got 12 openings
    that are there in the court. There is an enormous backlog in
    the D.C. Court. People expect justice. But they also expect
    when they get to court they are going to actually have their
    day in court and not have an attorney ask for a continuance,
    and they never actually get their day in court. How are you
    going to run your court in such a way that people get justice?
        Mr. Truong. Senator, your question crystallizes the issues,
    two critical issues confronting the Superior Court, and that is
    the backlog, which then affects how people get access to
    justice. If I were to be fortunate enough to be confirmed----
        Senator Lankford. Finally.
        Mr. Truong [continuing]. Finally, I will make sure that I
    am prepared every day to rule on the cases in front of me. I
    would make sure that I communicate effectively to the parties,
    litigants appearing before me. One of those communications
    would be in the form of standing orders to articulate the
    expectations to the parties that when they appear for a
    hearing, for case status, or for a trial, that they are
    prepared to go.
        Those expectations would be set forth clearly. I believe
    that is one of the tools I intend to use in order to assure
    that cases are moved quickly so that people who appear before
    me have a day in court.
        Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. Thank you to all of
    your families that are here, as well, and those that are
    watching. Thanks for going through this. Mr. Chair, thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Forst, as we discussed yesterday, and
    it was good spending time with you in the office yesterday, but
    as we were talking about yesterday, GSA recently confirmed with
    my staff that the agency plans to move forward with disposing
    the Hart-Doyle-Inouye property in Battle Creek, Michigan. More
    than 1,200 Michiganders work at this facility. It is a critical
    national defense and security installation, working with the
    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as well as the Federal
    Protective Service (FPS).
        For the record, we talked about this yesterday, but for the
    record will you ensure that GSA provides the resources to keep
    all of these critical national defense and security jobs in
    Battle Creek?
        Mr. Forst. Senator Peters, by the way, thank you for our
    time yesterday and thank you for the question. And in my times
    yesterday with you, Senator Hassan, and Senator Kim, one common
    theme that came across is for me and for the agency to be good
    listeners, and to be constituent seekers, and making sure that
    we take in all the available information and input from those
    stakeholders and those stakeholders that have something to
    bring forward to the table, and make sure we come to an agreed
    decision on each of these.
        There is the mathematics behind the real estate issue, and
    there is getting to the right place on the real estate issue.
    What I can commit to you is the agency will work feverishly
    with you and other constituents to make sure we get to the
    proper decision, and we all understand the basis of those
    decisions.
        Senator Peters. So your commitment, if confirmed, you will
    sit down with my team and we will make sure that the folks in
    those facilities know that this is a thoughtful decision and
    one that is something that is necessary?
        Mr. Forst. You have my 100 percent commitment, sir.
        Senator Peters. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Forst, when we
    met yesterday you also said that the GSA has a unique
    procurement responsibility because a stamp of approval of GSA
    signals governmentwide acceptance, and I certainly agree with
    this, which is why I am concerned with GSA's recent procurement
    of Elon Musk's xAI chatbot, Grok. This deal occurred following
    reports that Grok had produced racist and antisemitic content
    widely across Musk's social media platform.
        Do you share my concerns that the procurement of this
    artificial intelligence (AI) system, which has actively
    produced antisemitic and racist content, is that something that
    concerns you?
        Mr. Forst. Sir, I have not been a part of the decision to
    bring in any of these particular AI technologies.
        Senator Peters. I am not asking about your decision. Are
    you concerned about it?
        Mr. Forst. To the extent that it is as you described it
    would concern me, and I would like to learn more, sir.
        Senator Peters. What kind of signal do you think that sends
    to the country, that that is what we have procured?
        Mr. Forst. If that is, in fact, what we have, then that is
    not, I think, the signal we would necessarily want to send to
    the country. No, sir.
        Senator Peters. So if confirmed, would you commit to
    pausing the use of that system until we receive documentation
    about the details of the procurement, including whether the GSA
    actually performed a comprehensive risk assessment prior to----
        Mr. Forst. I think my commitment to you is I will meet with
    the team and I will understand the process used in selecting
    them, and I will make sure that we have all the facts. If there
    was incompleteness to the process, that we will rectify that.
        Senator Peters. OK. You stand by that you are concerned
    about it, and you will look at this.
        Mr. Forst. If you are concerned, it is a concern I would
    share, sir.
        Senator Peters. But it seems to be a general concern,
    antisemitic discussions and others----
        Mr. Forst. Yes, sir.
        Senator Peters [continuing]. And it should be a concern to
    not just me.
        Mr. Forst. No ambiguity about that.
        Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
        President Trump violated the Inspector General Act (IGA)
    when he fired 19 inspectors general, the most recent just over
    a week ago, without submitting to Congress the required 30-day
    notification and some sort of substantive rationale. I know
    that is a high bar for the President--you have to have a
    rationale for what you do. But Mr. Moring, yes or no, do you
    acknowledge that the President violated the requirements of the
    IG Act?
        Mr. Moring. That matter is currently under litigation.
        Senator Peters. It is just a yes-or-no question. Do you
    think he violated it?
        Mr. Moring. I can't answer that question, Senator.
        Senator Peters. You can't answer it. A pretty
    straightforward requirement. If you are nominated to be an IG,
    a pretty straightforward requirement, you are not going to be
    able to make decisions on? Are you going to wait to see what
    the President tells you, or how are you going to make those
    kinds of decisions?
        Mr. Moring. I am going to make independent decisions based
    on my training and experience.
        Senator Peters. So reading something straightforward that
    you are required a 30-day notification with substantive
    rationale, that is not straightforward enough? What else would
    you need to make able to make that decision?
        Mr. Moring. It is a straightforward question, but the
    answer is not straightforward. The Solicitor General took the
    position that the President was within his rights to take the
    actions that he did.
        Senator Peters. So we know the judge voted, a rule that he
    did violate the IG Act. It is just a question of back pay right
    now.
        Mr. D'Esposito, can you answer our question yes or no?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I believe that it is under review by the
    Supreme Court and that as of right now none of the inspectors
    general report back to the job, so they believe President Trump
    made the correct decision.
        Senator Peters. OK. Well, you are following the talking.
    You said you want to faithfully execute the President's agenda,
    so you are showing us that. Mr. Kirk?
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As my
    colleagues have mentioned here, the matter is pending
    litigation and I do not think it lends itself to----
        Senator Peters. Yes, OK. You will all be very effective in
    moving the President's agenda, as an IG, but clearly we know
    what you are about. Not one of you could give me a straight
    answer acknowledging this very basic fact. Not even the
    President denies that he did not send notice to the Congress,
    so it is clear, I do not think either--a few more seconds--it
    is clear that you folks do not understand the role of an IG,
    and that basically disqualifies you.
        Chairman Paul. I think the sarcasm toward the witnesses is
    uncalled for. I mean, you are asking them to make a decision on
    the Supreme Court. It is a complicated decision. A lot of the
    decisions on hiring and firing have come down on the
    President's side. Frankly, these are open-ended questions. To
    say that you have concluded, and you are smarter than the
    Supreme Court, you are welcome to say that. But putting people
    on the spot and saying, ``Oh, you have no opinion. You are just
    going to do whatever you want,'' these are very complicated
    decisions and I do not think any of us really know exactly how
    the Supreme Court is going to rule on this. I do not like the
    sarcasm.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Chair, this is not before the Supreme
    Court.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.
        Senator Peters. Let's at least have facts, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.
        Senator Peters. It is not before the Supreme Court. Are we
    just making up facts as we go along here?
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.
        Senator Peters. Oh my God.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO

        Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We talked a little
    bit this morning about text messages. I thought that was
    interesting because I have never seen a witness who was not
    here questioned. But I thought in the spirit of text messages
    we should read some. It talks about a text message that was
    sent out. It says, ``If you guys die before me I will go to
    their funerals to piss on their graves. Send them out awash in
    something.'' Then it talks about how they want Jennifer
    Gilbert's children to die in front of her so she can feel pain.
    That is the candidate for Attorney General (AG) from the State
    of Virginia. Would you, Senator Peters, condemn that text
    message, asking their children to die in front of the parents,
    and he can go to their funeral and piss on their graves?
        Senator Peters. I do not believe I am the witness here
    today. Thank you.
        Senator Moreno. OK. I just want to point out for the record
    that the bar is so low that you cannot condemn somebody wanting
    political violence. OK. So let's move on.
        To Mr. Kirk, Mr. D'Esposito, Mr. Moring, when you make
    decisions to investigate issues, do you go on X, read a post,
    and then make a decision based on that? Do you like read
    Newsweek and say, ``Oh, my God, this article says that,'' or,
    starting with you, Mr. Kirk, do you actually perform
    investigations?
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The role of
    the Inspector General is to work with facts.
        Senator Moreno. What if you read the article on Facebook?
    That is not enough?
        Mr. Kirk. Certainly not enough, no.
        Senator Moreno. How about if Manu Raju asks you a question
    in the hallway on the way out? Is that enough to make a
    decision?
        Mr. Kirk. Pardon me?
        Senator Moreno. If a cable news network (CNN) reporter asks
    you a question on the way out, is that enough just to make a
    decision? My point is, can you walk us through what you
    actually do to investigate these matters?
        Mr. Kirk. Sure. Inspectors General offices have significant
    numbers of staff of investigators, auditors, and their role is
    to collect the information from the agency, to be able to make
    a decision based upon----
        Senator Moreno. OK. Does that take five minutes? Six
    minutes? How long does that take?
        Mr. Kirk. It takes months.
        Senator Moreno. Months.
        Mr. Kirk. Months.
        Senator Moreno. OK. So not three minutes in questioning.
    Mr. D'Esposito, anything different?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I agree, and I spent my adult career as an
    investigator in the New York City Police Department (NYCPD). I
    worked for a few different mayors, definitely I do not agree
    with their political ideologies--but never once did I start an
    investigation, conduct an investigation, or make an arrest
    based on someone's political ideologies.
        Senator Moreno. Because you follow the law. That is your
    job, right?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Correct. I live the oath that I took and
    swore and that badge that I wore on my chest.
        Senator Moreno. And you are going to find the facts, no
    matter where they take you, to make certain that you do your
    job that you are sworn to do. Correct?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Absolutely. Exhaust every lead necessary.
        Senator Moreno. Mr. Moring, how about you? Obviously the
    Department of War is a huge agency, and you are going to be
    charged with a big responsibility. You are going to study these
    things thoroughly, make sure to only look at facts, not
    hyperbole or innuendo. Is that correct?
        Mr. Moring. That is correct, Senator. At the Department,
    sources of investigation come from many places. It can come
    from Senators, Congressmen, the hotline, whistleblower
    complaints. There are procedures that are already in place in
    writing at the Department which guide the initiation of
    investigations.
        Senator Moreno. You swore to uphold the Constitution and
    the law and to follow it, no matter where it goes. Correct?
        Mr. Moring. Yes, I do, Senator.
        Senator Moreno. To the Judges, D.C. obviously has a lot
    going on here, and I assume the same standard holds for the
    three of you, that you will follow the law, that you will
    interpret the Constitution as written?
        Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.
        Ms. Suttenberg. Yes, Senator.
        Mr. Truong. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Moreno. Perfect. Mr. Forst, I will actually give
    back time and just give you one piece of advice--sell, baby,
    sell. With that I will turn it back over to the Chair.
        Mr. Forst. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN

        Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Thanks to all of you for being
    here. Mr. Moring, Platte. Sorry, I know your first name. Mr.
    Moring, thank you. Can you tell me, is the Department of
    Defense Inspector General, the position you are nominated for,
    you just went through that you would uphold the U.S.
    Constitution. You would swear an oath to the Constitution of
    the United States. Right? Correct?
        Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Slotkin. And to uphold the laws of the United
    States. You are a lawyer, but IGs do not have to be lawyers.
    But both as an IG but as a person, a lawyer, uphold the laws of
    the United States.
        Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Slotkin. I am concerned about, in September, the
    President issued an Executive Order (EO) tasking the Department
    of Justice (DOJ) to come up with a list of domestic terrorist
    organizations (DTO). He gave a very broad definition of what
    domestic terrorist organizations were, including descriptors
    like anti-Christian, different views on the family, religion,
    and morality. There are also reports that the Department of
    Defense is participating in an interagency weaponization
    working group, made up of people from Department of Defense,
    from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of
    Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to go after the President's
    adversaries or enemies.
        As the Inspector General you would be expected to flag
    issues of law and investigate deeply problematic issues. If a
    Department of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), like the
    National Security Agency (NSA) the service intelligence
    agencies, Army intel, were to target American citizens for
    their political views and collect on American citizens, is that
    in violation of the law?
        Mr. Moring. Senator, the answer to your question has to do
    with the role of the Inspector General. I believe that the
    general counsel at the Department would be better able to
    address your question.
        Senator Slotkin. But this is just about law. I understand
    that the IG is not the one making those legal announcements.
    But if you learned that intelligence agencies were wiretapping
    American citizens because of their political views, is that in
    violation of U.S. law?
        Mr. Moring. The Department IG only conducts oversight with
    regard to the Department. If your question is limited to the
    Department, it is possible that the Inspector General may have
    a role in determining whether or not those agencies followed
    their own policies----
        Senator Slotkin. But this is an issue of law. So let's say
    the National Security Agency, which does wiretaps, and I am a
    former CIA officer. I worked with them all the time. Let's say
    the President of the United States tasked them to wiretap
    people who were attending the No Kings rally in Detroit,
    Michigan. Would that be legal for the intelligence community
    (IC), the DOD intelligence community, to target American
    citizens for their political views?
        Mr. Moring. Senator, I appreciate your sentiment and your
    concern, but it is not within the remit of the Inspector
    General to make a legal determination----
        Senator Slotkin. But it is law, right? I think, in general,
    and I would hope this would be a bipartisan thing, that the
    idea that our intelligence community, of which I was a proud
    member, would be turned against American citizens because of
    their alleged political views is as fundamental to who we are
    as anything that I have seen come before this Committee. I want
    you to say, separate from what your remit would be, I want you
    to say publicly that we are not going to turn agencies, like
    the CIA and the NSA and all these things, against the American
    people. You are the last line of defense. You are an IG, quite
    literally, overseeing conduct of the Department.
        If the intelligence agencies were asked to surveil American
    citizens, what would you do? Would you open an investigation,
    at a minimum? Would you push back at all? Or is it just OK now?
    God forbid, right, God forbid that this is just kind of the way
    we are going to be. The President says these are domestic
    terrorist organizations, and so we are now surveilling American
    citizens because of their views? I would hope my Republican
    colleagues would find that just as repugnant as me.
        I want to hear you say that you know that that is against
    not only the law but our values.
        Mr. Moring. Senator, I really appreciate your concern, and
    my sentiments are with you. But it is not my role to have
    personal opinions. I am guided by the facts and the application
    of the law to the facts.
        Senator Slotkin. I would just say it should not be about
    your role. It should be about who we are as American citizens,
    and what we do with our government when we turn it against
    people. I yield back.
        Chairman Paul. I am perfectly willing to answer the
    question. You are exactly right. You should not be targeted for
    your religious beliefs. But it is a little easier for me. I am
    my own agent. I can say what I want. I was elected. They are
    going to be working for people, and it is a little harder for
    them to have a philosophical discussion with you.
        But I will tell you that your questions are hypothetical
    ones, but there is a real question. It was called Arctic Frost,
    and it was administered by the Biden administration, where nine
    Members of Congress were targeted with unconstitutional
    warrants. They were given subpoenas for their geolocation--
    according to the Carpenter case. It was decided by the Supreme
    Court--your geolocation. You do have an ownership or a privacy
    interest in that. They were illegally surveilled, nine Members
    of Congress. If we are looking for bipartisan criticism of
    surveillance run amok, that is the place we might want to
    start. Senator Ernst.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST

        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I wholeheartedly
    agree. I want to thank all of you for being here today, and I
    am just going to double down on my colleague from Oklahoma, his
    sentiment, when we are looking at GSA and making sure that we
    are divesting of all of the real estate that sits out there,
    unused, across the great United States. I have spent a lot of
    time digging into that area. I chair the Senate Department of
    Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus, and have done my
    ``squeal'' work in the U.S. Senate for a number of years. I do
    appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma addressing that issue.
        There is another issue that I will continue on with, Mr.
    Forst, and this is the area of waste that I have been exposing
    through the misuse of government credit cards. In March, the
    Federal Government held about 4.6 million active purchase cards
    and accounts with $40 billion of spending on those cards last
    year. In recent years, this has included over 11,000 separate
    transactions at vendors or merchants that are known as high-
    risk merchants. Those high-risk merchants include casinos,
    nightclubs, bars, places of that nature, and I cannot really
    see where we can justify government credit cards being used in
    those types of establishments. I do not know what kind of
    government work is going on there.
        Mr. Forst, there are some definite improvements to GSA's
    Smart Pay program that I think we could implement. But what are
    you thinking we could do to make that situation better and
    monitor those cards better for our taxpayers?
        Mr. Forst. Senator Ernst, thank you very much for the
    question. Thanks for your support on the disposition of Federal
    real estate, as well. We will need your help.
        In terms of credit cards, in terms of other procurement
    activities that flow through the agency, there is a tremendous
    volume in dollars and numbers of transactions, and we have to
    do our best to make sure we have our arms around that data, and
    then how we scrub that data and how we look at what is
    appropriate and not what people want to do but what people
    really need to do with those kinds of programs.
        I think this also falls into the category, Senator, of risk
    management, which is for all these activities what are risks
    that we identify, which ones can we absorb, which ones can we
    mitigate, and which ones should we eliminate, and not be
    surprised because there are risks that hit us that we had not
    thought about.
        Your thoughts, your papers, meetings with all the members
    of the Senate, we are very open to taking suggestions and
    learning from this, and applying that and providing updates, as
    well, on the progress we make toward that. It is not a one-and-
    done exercise. It is something we have to be robust about from
    the start, and we have to continue, maintain, and feed that
    process.
        Senator Ernst. No, absolutely, and I look forward to
    working with you on that. We have also identified a number of
    former Federal employees that have left government employment
    and take their credit cards with them, and they still use them.
    I have introduced the Deactivating and Eliminating Cards Linked
    to Inactive or Nonexistent Employees (DECLINE) Act, and with
    that we would ensure that charge cards are promptly deactivated
    once those employees are leaving government service. I have
    talked to other vendors in the credit card space and they have
    talked about various trigger mechanisms where if you use those
    cards at those high-risk merchants they would be declined on
    those sites.
        I think there are a number of easy ways that we can wrap
    our arms around this and make sure that taxpayer dollars are
    not being spent for personnel that should not be spending those
    dollars and maybe inappropriately using those dollars.
        Mr. Moring, in the minute that I have left, I have
    introduced the Cost Openness and Spending Transparency (COST)
    Act that would require a price tag to be attached to all
    Pentagon research and development (R&D) projects supported with
    taxpayer dollars, and it was included in the Fiscal Year (FY)
    2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). So it is law
    now. However, despite that, the Pentagon has not implemented
    it, so they are not following the law. It makes no sense that
    the Pentagon is often ignoring the various threats that are
    posed out there by collaborating with, or even financing
    research and institutions with links to China. Then they over-
    classify documents and not disclose that spending information,
    to keep the taxpayers in the dark.
        Will the Office of Inspector General (OIG) make it a
    priority to ensure China is getting less access to Pentagon
    secrets and American citizens are getting more access?
        Mr. Moring. Senator, if confirmed, the Department's
    Inspector General will exercise oversight over the policy
    implementation that you have incorporated into statute.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. It is law, so we are very hopeful
    that we can followup on that.
        I thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for
    your being here today and your commitment to public service.
        Mr. D'Esposito, the position of Inspector General should be
    above politics, should be insulated from politics, should be
    independent and objective, and that goes for all of the
    positions of Inspector General. I am eager to have your
    commitment that you will not be a candidate for Congress in the
    Fourth Congressional District in the next election.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Right now, Senator, my focus is on being
    confirmed to serve as Inspector General of the United States
    Labor Department.
        Senator Blumenthal. I know that is your focus now, as you
    sit here, but I am asking for your commitment that you won't be
    a candidate.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Senator, with all due respect, as of today
    my focus is to be confirmed as Inspector General of the U.S.
    Labor Department.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, here is why----
        Mr. D'Esposito. Having discussions about the future are
    questions that I cannot answer.
        Senator Blumenthal. Here is why I am concerned about it. I
    have before me ads that were placed, apparently on behalf of
    D'Esposito for Congress.\1\ That is your campaign committee, is
    it not?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\The flyer submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
    Appendix on page 365.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. D'Esposito. It is.
        Senator Blumenthal. They are screenshots from your website
    on October 22, 2025. I am holding them up. You can probably see
    them and you are familiar with them, I am sure. They are your
    website. They are for your congressional committee, which
    apparently is ongoing.
        Mr. D'Esposito. My website is still active, but there has
    not been any fundraising or anything done with the committee.
        Senator Blumenthal. On September 19th, in the issue of 5
    Towns Jewish Times, you placed an ad, or your congressional
    committee did, on the occasion of Rosh Hashanah, wishing
    everyone Shana Tova. That ad was on behalf of your campaign
    committee, was it not?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I will have to check with my campaign.
        Senator Blumenthal. You will have to check with your
    campaign?
        It is here. How can you sit here and tell us that your
    focus is only on the IG position when you have an active
    campaign committee, you are placing ads, you are offering
    people lawn signs? That sounds like a campaign to me.
        Mr. D'Esposito. The campaign website that is still active
    is not being updated. It is not being used. There is no
    fundraising being done. There is not an active campaign being--
    --
        Senator Blumenthal. When is the last contribution made to
    your campaign committee?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I would assume before the New Year.
        Senator Blumenthal. Before the New Year?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I am not certain, but I have not done any
    active fundraising at all.
        Senator Blumenthal. But you are still accept campaign
    contributions, are you not?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I am not accepting them.
        Senator Blumenthal. You are turning them away?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I am not aware of any campaign
    contributions.
        Senator Blumenthal. In an interview in Newsday, on October
    8th, you were asked whether you would be a candidate, and you
    declined to say. Correct?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, there was an Ethics
    Committee investigation ongoing when you were defeated and left
    Congress last time. Was that Ethics Committee investigation
    concluded?
        Mr. D'Esposito. It was dismissed, yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. It was dismissed?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. It was concluded and the complaints
    were dismissed.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask Mr. Kirk. The SBA, on its
    website, had a special announcement which consisted, in part,
    of saying--and I am holding it up, screenshot--``Senate
    Democrats voted to block a clean Federal funding bill, H.R.
    5371, leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the
    U.S. Small Business Administration from serving America's 36
    million small businesses.'' That is a clear violation of the
    Hatch Act and the anti-lobbying law. Would you agree?
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The Hatch
    Act is overseen by the Office of Special Counsel. It is not
    within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am asking you to investigate an
    illegality within the SBA. Will you commit to do it?
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator. I will commit to working with
    you and your staff to investigate concerns and allegations, and
    if I am privileged to take on that role as the Inspector
    General I will work with you and your staff.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Moody.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY

        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Paul, and thank you to
    the nominees for being here today. I appreciate it.
        Oftentimes in these hearings we have a lot of, I will call
    them drive-by insults and accusations with very little
    followup. I think it is important that we give nominees a
    chance to either explain a prior statement or give an opinion
    as to how they would proceed if they are, in fact, confirmed. I
    want to start with Mr. D'Esposito.
        It was said by the Ranking Member that in your opening
    statement that you said that you would work to implement
    President Trump's agenda, or something to that extent. I
    actually went back and pulled your opening statement, because
    that concerned me. An inspector general very much ensures that
    the agency is working above board and in compliance with laws
    and ethics, et cetera, et cetera, and that would be a primary
    responsibility.
        I actually went back and looked at your opening statement,
    and you did, in fact, commend President Trump for making
    something clear, that government exists to serve the people,
    not itself. That is one of the reasons I agreed to come up here
    and be a Senator. I am one of the newest United States
    Senators, and I believe wholly that people need to have a trust
    that their government, that D.C., is working in their interest,
    that it is not working to promote itself or the people within
    it.
        I sat here shocked as I listened to another colleague say,
    ``Will you make sure that this government doesn't turn on its
    own people?'' I am thinking to myself, since I have been here
    as a United States Senator, we have discovered, under the last
    administration, we were surveilling United States Senators, and
    in fact, turning agencies, I would submit in many instances
    unjustifiably so, against people who may have actually
    questioned our election integrity. As a people, we should have
    the right to ask questions. It is our government.
        I commend you for saying and reaffirming that government
    exists to serve the people, not itself, and I saw, within your
    opening statement, that you said that you want to put that
    mission forward, that government exists to serve the people
    through the work of the Office of Inspector General.
        Just briefly, because I do not have a lot of time, would
    you like to comment on that and clarify what might have been
    accused against you?
        Mr. D'Esposito. First of all, Senator, thank you for the
    question, and it was one that was also referenced in our first
    hearing in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)
    Committee, and that is President Trump has a vision to rein in
    the Golden Age of the American worker. I do not believe that is
    partisan. I do not believe creating the fiercest, strongest
    military is partisan. I think that all should be American, and
    that is what I believe in working hard.
        Senator Moody. As Inspector General, do you believe it is
    your job to ensure that the people working for that agency are
    indeed following the ethical guidelines and the law of the
    United States and certainly the agency?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Absolutely. It is same oath that I took
    when I was a New York City police detective I take very
    seriously, as did my grandfather, who fought in World War II,
    and my dad, who actually fought in Vietnam.
        Senator Moody. Thank you. I now want to turn to, along that
    line of making sure this government is working for the people,
    I commend this President, all of the people he has put in place
    to return this to a nation under a rule of law, indeed, the law
    of the people. The law of the United States is the people's
    law. Though we want to create all of these narratives around
    the United States and what is playing out on television (TV),
    what looks like cesspools of chaos, whether it is Portland or
    Chicago, as people are coming out and sometimes obstructing or
    attacking or assaulting Federal law enforcement officers that
    are trying to comply with the people's law, it is as if they
    are giving the finger to the people's will. I commend the
    agencies for surging resources to restore law and order and
    indeed safety in our communities.
        But law enforcement officers can only do so much, and for
    our system to work we have to have good judges that will follow
    the law and that will not, in some aim to either satisfy some
    personal bias or to achieve some radical agenda of partisan
    ends, ignore the law. We have to have judges in order to have
    security to take what is presented to them and then follow the
    law, and when appropriate under the law, impose a sentence for
    a crime that is committed when there is a conviction.
        And real quick to our judges, our associate judges that are
    nominated, will you commit to following the people's law and
    making sure that the judicial branch can be respected, because
    you are judges applying the law, as the people intended, and
    not subverting the integrity of the judicial institution by
    implementing your own will?
        I will just go down the line. We will start with you, Mr.
    Trong.
        Mr. Truong. I do.
        Senator Moody. Ms. Suttenberg?
        Ms. Suttenberg. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Moody. Mr. Richard?
        Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Chair Paul, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Peters, for holding this important hearing. To
    all of the nominees, thank you for your willingness to serve.
    Congratulations to your families, as well.
        I will followup where Senator Moody was going. It is a
    question I now ask in every hearing involving nominations and
    it is a straightforward one. Representative D'Esposito, I have
    asked you this and other questions at your prior hearing, but I
    would like you to please answer again today with the other
    nominees.
        For Mr. Forst, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Moring, and
    Representative D'Esposito, if directed by the President to take
    action that would break the law, would you follow the law or
    follow the President's directive? Mr. Moring, we will start
    with you.
        Mr. Moring. Senator, I do not think I would ever be put in
    that position.
        Senator Hassan. Let us be clear before everybody else says
    that. It is a simple answer. Will you follow the law if you are
    put in that position? Senator Peters referenced the decision
    about the illegal firings of the IGs that this President did,
    and I just want to be clear because a number of you kind of
    hesitated and said it is under appeal. It is not. The court
    found that that was an illegal firing. There is nothing under
    appeal because the court also decided not to reinstate the IGs
    who were illegally fired because he concluded, or the judge
    concluded, that the President would then fire them under the
    legal process. The only thing at issue is back pay.
        That is an example of this President of the United States
    breaking the law. If you are instructed to break the law by the
    President, will you follow the law or follow the President's
    directive? Mr. Moring.
        Mr. Moring. Senator, realizing that is a hypothetical, I
    will never do anything in my office, if confirmed, that is
    illegal or immoral.
        Senator Hassan. So you will follow the law. I want a yes or
    no.
        Mr. Moring. I will follow the law.
        Senator Hassan. Now, Representative D'Esposito.
        Mr. D'Esposito. I believe President Trump is a man of
    integrity, and I don't believe that his or his Administration
    would ever ask us to break, or me, to break the law.
        Senator Hassan. Are you going to follow the law?
        Mr. D'Esposito. I would always, as I have done in my
    career, follow the law.
        Senator Hassan. Your answer defies the factual record. But
    Mr. Kirk, go ahead.
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I also
    believe I would not be asked that question or put in that
    position, but I can always commit to, as my colleagues have
    stated, to follow the law, the statutory obligations of the
    Inspector General to abide by the law, to fulfill the statute--
    --
        Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. Mr. Arrington?
        Mr. Arrington. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
    again pose that it would be a hypothetical, but as a veteran I
    have sworn an oath to the Constitution, and I would follow that
    no matter who told me to do an unlawful thing.
        Senator Hassan. Mr. Forst.
        Mr. Forst. Again, Senator, as we spoke yesterday, I do not
    expect to be asked that, but I will take an oath of office like
    you, and I will follow that oath of office.
        Senator Hassan. Let's just be clear. There is plenty on the
    factual record of this President of the United States not only
    breaking the law but instructing other people to break the law.
    So you might want to brush up on that.
        Now, let me turn to the nominees for judicial seats. Mr.
    Truong, Ms. Suttenberg, and Mr. Rickard, do you commit to
    applying the law fairly and independently, without favor or
    bias, and to reject any attempts by outside parties to
    influence you and the decisions you make? We will start with
    you, Mr. Truong.
        Mr. Truong. Senator, if I have the privilege to be
    confirmed as a judge, I am duty-bound to follow the law and the
    precedent set by----
        Senator Hassan. Just a yes or no, because I am running out
    of time. Yes?
        Mr. Truong. Yes.
        Senator Hassan. Ms. Suttenberg?
        Ms. Suttenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you. Now, to Mr. Kirk, Representative
    D'Esposito, and Mr. Moring, if confirmed, will you work in a
    transparent way to investigate conflicts of interest involving
    government officials? Again, yes or no. Mr. Kirk?
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I am
    committed to following----
        Senator Hassan. I need a yes or no because I am running out
    of time. Yes?
        Mr. Kirk. I will investigate conflicts of interest and
    appropriate matters----
        Senator Hassan. And will you do it in a transparent way?
    Yes or no.
        Mr. Kirk. In a transparent way, objective and independent.
        Senator Hassan. Representative D'Esposito?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Yes.
        Senator Hassan. Mr. Moring?
        Mr. Moring. Yes, I will, Senator.
        Senator Hassan. Gentlemen, could we have a little bit of
    order on the dais please? Thank you, the three of you, for your
    commitment. Recent reporting states that the President has two
    claims pending against the Department of Justice, in which he
    is asking the Department, part of his government staff with his
    handpicked people, to approve a payment of $230 million in
    taxpayer money to him. Even the President himself recognizes
    how absurd and inappropriate this conflict of interest is. This
    is what President Trump said--``I am the one that makes the
    decision, right? And you know, that decision would have to go
    across my desk, and it's awfully strange to make a decision
    where I am paying myself.''
        If confirmed as an Inspector General, if the President
    tried to authorize payments of taxpayer money to himself from
    your agency, would you investigate that as a conflict of
    interest? Mr. Kirk.
        Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I would, as
    I had mentioned previously, under my statutory responsibility,
    investigate all allegations of violations of law and conflicts
    of interest.
        Senator Hassan. Do you consider the President of the United
    States directing an agency that reports to him, or that he
    considers reporting to him, to pay him money a potential
    conflict of interest, or an actual conflict of interest?
        Mr. Kirk. I am not familiar with the facts of that matter.
    I am, as I said----
        Senator Hassan. I asked you to respond to a quote. I will
    move on to Congressman D'Esposito.
        Mr. D'Esposito. If confirmed, I will be an independent and
    an objective oversight through audits and investigations of the
    Department of Labor.
        Senator Hassan. If the President tried to authorize
    payments of taxpayer money to himself from your agency, would
    you investigate that as a conflict of interest? Yes or no.
        Mr. D'Esposito. I would be an independent and objective
    oversight for audits and investigations.
        Senator Hassan. Mr. Moring, yes or no.
        Mr. Moring. No. The Defense Department does not conduct
    oversight of the White House.
        Senator Hassan. That is extraordinarily disappointing.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations to
    the nominees. Thank you all for being here. I want to start
    with you, Mr. Truong, Ms. Suttenberg, and Mr. Rickard. You have
    all been nominated--so they put you all right together, right
    in the middle--you have been nominated to the D.C. Superior
    Court.
        I just want to ask you a question or two about your
    judicial philosophy, and I want to start by referencing a
    picture that maybe will come up behind me.\1\ This was maybe a
    photo you have seen before. It is not a pleasant one. But it
    did occur right here in the district. This is Edward Coristine.
    Edward was 19 years old when this photo was taken. This is just
    from July of this year. He was a government employee at the
    time. This is in Logan Circle here in the district. He was out
    one evening, I think with his girlfriend, when he was attacked.
    He and his female friend both were attacked by a roving band of
    teenagers, who left him in this condition, beat him pretty
    badly, as you can see. He was able to get his female friend
    into the car and safe, and then turned and confronted the whole
    band of them himself. This is the condition he was left in.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The picture referenced by Senator Hawley appears in the
    Appendix on page 363.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It looks pretty violent to me. But when the assault
    assailants were taken before the D.C. Superior Court, the
    relevant judge, Judge Kendra Briggs, who I am sad to say was
    reported favorably out of this Committee, though, over my no
    vote, she gave the assailants zero prison time. What she said
    was the purpose of sentencing is ``not punishment''--that is a
    quote--``not punishment. It is rehabilitation.'' Apparently she
    thinks that allowing people who do that kind of thing to 19-
    year-olds, allowing them to get off without any kind of
    punishment is rehabilitative. That is its own interesting
    question.
        But I want to ask you first, do you agree that the purpose
    of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation? I would
    like to hear from each of you on this. I think it is an
    important question. Mr. Truong, let's start with you.
        Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. My approach to sentencing
    is to consider the presentencing report of the defendants, the
    witness victim impact statement, the community's impact
    statement, any recommendations from the prosecutors and the----
        Senator Hawley. But what is the purpose of sentencing, in
    your words? What is your philosophy?
        Mr. Truong. My approach to sentencing is to consider all
    the facts, apply the law, and to impose a sentence that
    reflects the seriousness of the crime.
        Senator Hawley. Do you think that punishment is an
    appropriate aspect of sentencing?
        Mr. Truong. That is one factor to consider within the
    context of the approach to sentencing.
        Senator Hawley. Do you agree with Judge Biggs that the
    purpose of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation?
        Mr. Truong. Senator, I appear in court so many times that I
    have the reflex of referring to those in the honorific title.
        Senator, I do not have all the information that Judge
    Briggs had in front of her, and I need to be circumspect in my
    response because judicial canons counsel that as a judicial
    nominee I should refrain from commenting on issues that may
    appear before me.
        Senator Hawley. I am not asking you to comment on this
    case. This case is over. You are not going to have this case. I
    am not asking you about her. I am asking you about you. I want
    to know what your judicial philosophy is. My question is, would
    you agree that the purpose of sentencing is not punishment but
    rehabilitation? That framing is pretty stark. Not punishment
    but rehabilitation. Do you think that is right?
        Mr. Truong. My sentencing philosophy is to impose a
    sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes and the
    imposed consequences that are deserved within the context of
    studying the facts and applying the law to the facts.
        Senator Hawley. OK. I wish you would be a little
    circumspect. Ms. Suttenberg, go ahead.
        Ms. Suttenberg. Thank you, Senator. I cannot speak to that
    particular case given that there are still criminal cases
    pending. But I will say that I spent my career as a prosecutor
    fighting crime, and I am certainly committed to ensuring that
    there are accountability structures in place as a judge, both
    for juveniles and for adults.
        When it comes to sentencing, I think that there are
    important goals of sentencing: retribution, deterrence,
    incapacitation, rehabilitation. Given the severity of the
    crime, I think you have to look to what is going to serve the
    interest of judge in any particular case, and there could be
    different goals, sort of depending on----
        Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you this. Shouldn't keeping
    the public safe be a major goal of sentencing?
        Ms. Suttenberg. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Shouldn't keeping violent offenders off of
    our streets be a goal of sentencing?
        Ms. Suttenberg. I absolutely agree there should be.
        Senator Hawley. OK. Good. Mr. Rickard, what about you?
        Mr. Rickard. Yes, Senator, thank you. I would follow the
    law of the District of Columbia, which requires considering a
    number of factors, including the seriousness of the offense and
    imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the
    offense and the criminal history of the offender, a sentence
    that provides sufficient deterrence, both specific deterrence
    for the individual offender and general deterrence to the
    community, and the third factor does consider rehabilitation.
    But that is just one of the three factors that has to be
    considered.
        Senator Hawley. Last question, Mr. Chair. Do you agree that
    protecting the public and getting violent offenders off the
    streets is an important goal of sentencing?
        Mr. Rickard. Yes. I think that is the deterrence that I
    just mentioned. Specific deterrence is making sure that someone
    who has committed a violent crime and is likely to do so again
    would not do so.
        Senator Hawley. I will have some more questions for those
    of the rest of you on the panel. I am sure you are very
    disappointed I did not get to ask you any. Congratulations
    again on your nominations.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. We have had some discussion about
    the necessity for independence of particularly the Inspectors
    General, obviously of Judges, to be free of partisanship. It is
    incredibly important. I do not want to downplay that at all.
    But we also have to accept you at your word. If you say you are
    going to be impartial, we either believe you or we do not
    believe you. If they choose not to believe you, that is one
    thing, but I think your comments should be treated with
    respect.
        I am a big fan of the inspector general program, and I will
    give you just one example of where we learned something
    incredibly important. It was from the Defense Inspector
    General. During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), it became
    aware that there was a lot of facts pointing toward that the
    virus may have come from a lab in Wuhan and not from a wet
    market, not from animals. But one of the biggest things we got
    was from a whistleblower, a lieutenant colonel, who came
    forward and he said, you know what? The people, the lab that
    was close to the wet market, where people are saying it might
    have come from, they submitted a proposal to Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018, called DEFUSE, and it
    looked a lot like what the virus became. They were talking
    about creating a virus with a certain cleavage site to enter
    the cells, which was unusual in coronaviruses, and then, lo and
    behold, the same people proposing that two years before did not
    get the money, but then this research project was hidden. But
    people said it was a smoking gun and it pointed heavily toward
    the lab in Wuhan. We only heard about it through an Inspector
    General.
        It is important that that Inspector General did not look at
    it as, oh, I am going to protect President Trump, or I am going
    to protect President Biden. It is the truth, so it is
    incredibly important. I hope all of you will take that into
    account.
        Same with the judges. We have gone through four years of
    lawfare, where President Trump has been attacked repeatedly,
    where they have changed the law so they can go after him, where
    they have said, well, there was a statute of limitations on the
    claim of the one woman in New York. They just changed the
    statute of limitations. They took and bundled records
    complaints, and bundled 30 of them and made them all into
    felonies. They did things with the law that ultimately were
    rebuked by the public.
        It does take a lot of gall then to have them come forward
    and lecture us and lecture Republican nominees about how you
    are going to be impartial. I want you to be, though. I do not
    want you to go back and say, oh, this is my time for
    retribution against the other side. I want you all to be bigger
    than that. There are probably very few in the Senate who are as
    ecumenical and as even-handed as I am. I have not always been
    apologizing for the President. In fact, I am one of the
    Republicans who has been unafraid to criticize the President on
    policy, more than anybody else.
        But the thing is that we do expect that in our civil
    servants. Mr. Moring, can you comment on how you would approach
    the job as an impartial judge and as an Inspector General?
        Mr. Moring. Yes, Senator. My background is being a law
    clerk to a Federal judge, where I had to give the Judge my best
    independent legal advice. I worked for the Department of
    Justice as a trial lawyer, investigating customs fraud, and my
    job there was to provide independent advice to the Attorney
    General with regard to those prosecutions. In my role as legal
    counsel to the General Counsel at the Department of Defense,
    again my job was to give the best independent legal advice I
    could to benefit the Department. In private practice, again I
    had to give opinions to clients that they did not want to hear.
        I feel that this background, also my military background as
    a lieutenant colonel and having to work through the problems in
    Afghanistan, I have made a career of independent legal advice.
        Chairman Paul. I think people in the military, particularly
    rising to that rank, have a long history in the military of
    trying to treat things objectively and not bring religion or
    politics into things.
        Mr. D'Esposito, you have been a politician so you have seen
    both sides of it. You have seen the barbs and the unfair
    accusations, and everybody on both sides has done that. Are you
    willing and able, and will you pledge not to be a politician,
    to be an Inspector General and to evaluate things? I guess you
    said you were also a policeman?
        Mr. D'Esposito. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question.
    I have spent most of my adult life in the public service world.
    I am a 26-year member of the Volunteer Fire Department back
    home, where I served as chief from 2009 to 2016. I was the
    incident commander during Hurricane Sandy, and my community was
    one of the hardest hit on the East Coast.
        When we responded to the hundreds of thousands of calls
    during that time and during my time as a firefighter and chief,
    never once did political ideology come in place. I served 16
    years in the New York City Police Department, some of it as a
    cop and then promoted to detective. I left the department, or
    retired from the department with over close to 700 arrests,
    over 50 medals for meritorious and excellent police duty. I
    dismantled gangs. I took hundreds of guns off the street. I
    removed poison from communities to make them safer, made
    arrests for bribery. Never once was it politically motivated.
        Then I came to Congress, and I was named one of the most
    bipartisan members of the 118th Congress.
        Chairman Paul. I appreciate your service and I take you at
    your word. We will hopefully see good service from you that is
    objective.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. With that, that concludes our hearing.\1\
    Thank you all for coming today.\2\ The nominees have filed\3\
    responses to biographical and financial questions.\4\ They have
    answered pre-hearing questions.\5\ They have also submitted
    opening statements.\6\ Everything has been reviewed\7\ by the
    Office of Government Ethics.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information of Mr. Forst appears in the Appendix on page
    33.
        \2\ The information of Mr. Arrington appears in the Appendix on
    page 114.
        \3\ The information of Mr. Troung appears in the Appendix on page
    166.
        \4\ The information of Ms. Suttenberg appears in the Appendix on
    page 192.
        \5\ The information of Mr. Rickard appears in the Appendix on page
    224.
        \6\ The information of Mr. Kirk appears in the Appendix on page
    249.
        \7\ The information of Mr. D'Esposito appears in the Appendix on
    page 285.
        \8\ The information of Mr. Moring appears in the Appendix on page
    329.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the Committee has received letters of support
    for the nominees. All of this will be made part of the record.
    Without objection, this information will be made part of the
    hearing record, and with the exception of the nominees'
    financial data, which are on file in the Committee.
        The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,
    October 24th. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.
        [Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]