[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]