▶ 0:16:32Chair Paul: Hearing will come to order. Today, the committee is excited to meet eight nominees. They will be edward forst, deputy administrator of the general services administration, charles arrington to be a member of the federal labor relations authority, john truong to be associate judge in the D.C. superior court, elana suttenberg to be associate judge on the D.C. superior court, stephen ricard also to be an associate judge on the D.C.
▶ 0:16:59Chair Paul: Superior court , william kirk to be inspector general of the small business administration, anthony d'esposito to be inspector general of the department of labor, and last but not least, platte moring iii to be inspector general for the department of defense. The witness written statements have been submitted for the record and I ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support that have been received for the nominees. In the interest of time, I will forgo opening remarks.
▶ 0:17:31Chair Paul: I will recognize ranking member peters at this time.
▶ 0:17:33Sen. Peters: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Welcome to each of the nominees and congratulations on your nominations. 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 I am glad that paul ingrassia's nomination to lead the office of special counsel has been withdrawn. Racist messages that Mr. ingrassia reportedly said in a private chat are absolutely disgusting. Mr.
▶ 0:18:01Sen. Peters: Ingrassia has said that he is being smeared unfairly and that those messages lack context. Let's be clear, there is no context that makes the use of racial slurs ok. Even without these messages, we also have hundreds of racist, sexist, anti-semitic statements by Mr. ingrassia that he has made publicly in his short career.
▶ 0:18:26Sen. Peters: His clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric along with his complete lack of any, any relevant experience is wholly disqualifying. Paul ingrassia should have never been nominated for such a critical oversight role but his insistence exemplifies the trump administration's outright contempt for independent oversight.
▶ 0:18:51Sen. Peters: Since taking office, this administration has attacked every key institution charged with rooting on government waste, fraud, and abuse. In january, president trump illegally fired 18 inspectors general without any explanation to congress and dismissed another id last week again without legally required justification.
▶ 0:19:14Sen. Peters: 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 did not have a good answer. The president has fired top officials at the office of special counsel and the merit systems protection board, agencies charged with protecting whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse.
▶ 0:19:47Sen. Peters: This administration has repeatedly attacked a nonpartisan accountability government office, saying it should not exist. Government accountability should not exist in the president's words. These are agencies that congress created to hold the president and the executive branch accountable, to ensure the federal government is indeed serving the american people and not the whims of a pocketbook of a president, or his political cronies.
▶ 0:20:14Sen. Peters: To the three inspector general nominees today, I'm concerned about your ability to conduct effective oversight given the president's attacks on ig independence. Mr. d'esposito, you have made no efforts to address concerns that you are a partisan operative. You have submitted an opening statement to this committee that includes a pledge to carry out the president's agenda as inspector general.
▶ 0:20:43Sen. Peters: This betrays the very deep misunderstanding of the role of what an ig actually is. To say nothing of the laundry list of misconduct allegations that have 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 sincerely limits members abilities to get answers to important questions and to have meaningful exchanges.
▶ 0:21:13Sen. Peters: It certainly limits public transparency into the committee's nomination process, which I'm sure was the intent of the chairman. Still, I want to thank all your nominees for being here today. I look forward to hearing from each of you.
▶ 0:21:26Chair Paul: It is the practice of this committee to swear in witnesses. With the nominees please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you give will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? Thank you. It is the standard practice of the committee for the chairman to ask the nominees the following question.
▶ 0:21:54Chair Paul: 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? Let's go down the list. Mr. forst. Mr. arrington. Mr. troung. Mr. ricard. Mr. d'esposito. >> I do.
▶ 0:22:16Chair Paul: Thank you. I will now have a round of five-minute questions. We will start with senator lankford.
▶ 0:22:29Sen. Lankford: Thank you all for being here and were going through this process. It is a long, arduous process with lots of paperwork and questions that has led you to this moment. We will expeditiously work through this progress that process in the ceiling as well. A question for a few of you. Mr. forst, gsa is exceptionally important to us in many ways, getting information and details. One of those is dealing with real property.
▶ 0:22:58Sen. Lankford: The federal government owns way too much property. It's been a challenge for us to sell property off or to make it available and get it off of our books, with 38 trillion dollars in total debt as a nation. We have to stop owning things we don't use. What are your thoughts and plans for how to help with the real property disposition?
▶ 0:23:17Mr. Forst: Senator lankford, thank you for the question. I appreciate the question and I think the career staff and gsa appreciates the question and the motivation behind it. The federal government has about 8008 hundred properties, of which we owned 1000 500 properties. The analysis for the proper footprint of the government extends also beyond what we own into what release as well.
▶ 0:23:46Mr. Forst: What is the right size, the right mission of the real estate for the government of today and the government of tomorrow and tomorrow is tomorrow? We have 350 million feet of real estate that we control. Probably makes us the biggest real estate owner. Gsa doesn't control all of the federal real estate in that way. We have so many constituents of interest.
▶ 0:24:09Mr. Forst: We have returned to work orders in place, and there's 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 we own. When we are a tenant in somebody 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 of an ongoing basis. When we are the landlord and own the property, I would say we are somewhat deficient.
▶ 0:24:35Mr. Forst: In the annual report, we show $24 billion of deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance is a gentle term for I will say delinquent maintenance come of which $6 billion is urgently needed over one to two years. We have to take whole stock of what we own, the mission of each one of our constituent clients, and determine the appropriate way to move forward. One more thing if I may. Gsa is the tip of the spear in federal real estate.
▶ 0:25:03Mr. Forst: We cannot actually return to work all of our people into our buildings because 25% of it has been deemed uninhabitable.
▶ 0:25:10Sen. Lankford: We have to get that off the roll. One of the air as I worked on for years is working with our border facilities. Cbp hone some of those facilities, gsa owns some of those. Gsa ones are not being well-maintained and not well-designed, so we are not getting the cooperation to be in some areas. I will come back to you later to figure out how we manage that in the days ahead. I appreciate your engagement.
▶ 0:25:39Sen. Lankford: For the ig's that are here, thank you. Thankless job to say the least. We were selected by the president, confirmed by the congress, but you are the eyes and ears for the american people in these agencies. There is an expectation that you work independently. The american taxpayer expect someone to be able to give recommendations, be more efficient, not only where there is inefficiency or illegal activity. There is an expectation that you work for the american people, to be effective in those roles.
▶ 0:26:09Sen. Lankford: So thank you for stepping up to be able to do that. I appreciate you you taking on that task. For those of you stepping into the D.C. court, Mr. truong, you are one of the few people on the planet with 6 billion people that was nominated by president trump, nominated by president biden, and now you are here a third time for a third nomination from president trump.
▶ 0:26:34Sen. Lankford: I bet not many people on the planet that has been nominated three times and twice by trump and once by bogdan. I have asked you before, how will you run your court in such a way that people get faster access to justice? We have 12 openings in the court. There is an enormous backlog in the D.C. court.
▶ 0:26:58Sen. Lankford: People expect justice, but they also expect when they get to court, they will have their day in court and not have an attorney ask for a continuance and they never get a day in court. How will you run your court in such a way that people get justice?
▶ 0:27:09Mr. Troung: Senator, your question crystallizes the two issues confronting superior courts, the backlog, which affects how people get justice. If I were to be fortunate enough to be confirmed, finally, I would make sure that I am prepared every day to rule on the cases in front of me. I would make sure I communicate effectively to the party litigants appearing before me.
▶ 0:27:39Mr. Troung: One of those communications would be in the form of a standing order to articulate the expectations to the parties that when they appear for a hearing for case status or trial, that they are prepared to go. Those expectations will be set forth clearly. I believe that is one of the tools I intend to use to ensure that cases are move quickly so that people who appear before me have their day.
▶ 0:28:02Sen. Lankford: Thank you to all of the families here and thanks for those watching. Thank you for going through this.
▶ 0:28:08Chair Paul: Senator peters.
▶ 0:28:12Sen. Peters: Mr. forst, as we discussed yesterday -- good spending time with you in the office yesterday. As we were talking, gsa recently confirmed with my staff at the agency plans to move forward with disposing the noa property in battle creek, michigan.
▶ 0:28:34Sen. Peters: More than 1200 michiganders work at these facilities, a critical national defense and security installation, working with each the defense logistics agency. We talked about this but for the record, will you ensure gsa provides the resources to ensure all of these national security jobs in battle creek?
▶ 0:28:58Mr. Forst: Thank you for our time yesterday and thank you for the question. In my time with you and senator hassan, senator kim, one, theme that came up across is for me and the ages to be good listeners, constituent seekers, to take in all the available information and input from those stakeholders, those stakeholders that have something to bring to the table, make sure that we come to an agreed decision.
▶ 0:29:25Mr. Forst: There is the mathematics behind the real estate issue and there is getting to the right place on the real estate issue. What I 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.
▶ 0:29:39Sen. Peters: 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, one that is something that is necessary?
▶ 0:29:51Mr. Forst: 100% commitment.
▶ 0:29:54Sen. Peters: Thank you. Mr. forst, when we met yesterday, you also said that gsa has a unique procurement responsibility because of a stamp of approval, gsa signals government wide acceptance. I certainly agree with this. Which is why I'm concerned with gsa's recentprocurement of elon musk's xai chatbot.
▶ 0:30:21Sen. Peters: This deal occurred following reports that grok produced racist and anti-semitic content while the across the social media platforms. Do you share my concerns at the procurement of this ai system which has actively produced anti-semitic and racist conduct, is that something that concerns you?
▶ 0:30:42Mr. Forst: I have not been a part of the decision to bring in any of these particular --
▶ 0:30:47Sen. Peters: I'm not asking about the decision, are you concerned about it?
▶ 0:30:51Mr. Forst: To the extent that you describe it, it does concern me.
▶ 0:30:55Sen. Peters: What signaled is not sent to the country?
▶ 0:31:00Mr. Forst: That is not the signal that we want to send to the country.
▶ 0:31:05Sen. Peters: Would you consider pausing the use of that system until we receive details of the procurement, including whether the gsa performed a comprehensive risk assessment?
▶ 0:31:16Mr. Forst: My commitment to you is I will meet with the team and understand the process used in selecting them, make sure we have all the facts, and if there was incompleteness to the process, we will rectify that.
▶ 0:31:28Sen. Peters: You stand by that you are concerned about it and will look at it.
▶ 0:31:32Mr. Forst: If you are concerned, it's a concern I would share.
▶ 0:31:36Sen. Peters: General concern, anti-semitic.
▶ 0:31:39Mr. Forst: No ambiguity about that.
▶ 0:31:41Sen. Peters: President trump violated the inspector general's act when he fired 19 inspectors general. The most recent 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. Mr. moran, do you acknowledge the president violated the requirements of the ig act?
▶ 0:32:08Mr. Moring: That matter is currently under litigation.
▶ 0:32:11Sen. Peters: Yes or no question, do you think you violated it?
▶ 0:32:14Mr. Moring: I cannot answer that question, senator.
▶ 0:32:18Sen. Peters: Pretty straightforward requirement. If you are nominated to be ig, you are not going to be able to make decisions on? You are going to wait to see what the president tells you? How will you make those decisions?
▶ 0:32:31Mr. Moring: I will make independent decisions based on my training and experience.
▶ 0:32:35Sen. Peters: Reading something straightforward, you are required 30 day notification with subsequent rationale, that is not straightforward enough? What else would you need?
▶ 0:32:45Mr. Moring: It is a straightforward question but the answer is not straightforward. The inspector general took the position that the president was within his rights to take the actions that he did.
▶ 0:32:56Sen. Peters: We know the judge ruled that he violated the ig act. Mr. d'esposito, can you answer the question yes or no? >> as of right now, none of the inspector general's report back to the job. They believe president trump made the right decision.
▶ 0:33:15Sen. Peters: You said you want to to faithfully execute the president's agenda. You are showing that. Mr. kirk.
▶ 0:33:22Mr. Kirk: As my colleagues have mentioned -- thank you for the question. The matter is pending litigation. I don't think it lends itself --
▶ 0:33:35Sen. Peters: You'll all be very effective in moving the president's agenda as ig. Not one of you can give me a straight answer acknowledging this very basic fact. Not even the president denies that he didn't send notice to the congress. I don't think -- a few more seconds. It is clear you guys don't understand the role of the ig. That basically disqualifies you.
▶ 0:34:00Chair Paul: I think the sarcasm toward the witnesses is uncalled for. You are asking them to make a decision on the supreme court. It's 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 you have concluded and you are smarter than the supreme court, you are welcome to say that, but to put people on the spot, you are going to do whatever you want.
▶ 0:34:29Chair Paul: These are very complicated decisions. I don't think any of us know how the supreme court will rule on this.
▶ 0:34:34Sen. Peters: Mr. chairman, this is not before the supreme court. Let's at least have facts, Mr. chairman. Are we just making up facts as we go along?
▶ 0:34:44Chair Paul: Senator moreno.
▶ 0:34:50Sen. Moreno: . Thank you. We talk this morning about text messages. I thought that was interesting because I've never seen a witness asked that question. In the spirit of text messages, I thought we should read some. It talks about a text message that was sent out, if you guys die before me, I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves. Send them out awash in something. Then talks about how they want jennifer gilbert's children to die in front of her so she can feel pain.
▶ 0:35:22Sen. Moreno: That is the candidate for attorney general the state of virginia. Would you, senator peters, condemned that text message, asking their children to die in front of the parents and he can go to the funeral and piss on their graves?
▶ 0:35:41Sen. Peters: I don't believe I'm a witness here, senator.
▶ 0:35:44Sen. Moreno: Just want to point out the record, the bar is so low, you cannot condemn someone wanting political violence. Ok, so let's move on. When you make decisions to investigate issues, do you go on x, read a post and make a decision based on that? Do you read newsweek and say, this article says that, or do you actually perform investigations?
▶ 0:36:14Mr. Kirk: Thank you for the question. The role of the inspector general is to work with facts.
▶ 0:36:19Sen. Moreno: What if you read an article on facebook? That is not enough?
▶ 0:36:25Mr. Kirk: Certainly not enough.
▶ 0:36:27Sen. Moreno: How about if manu ask you a question on the way out. If a cnn reporter ask you a question, is that enough to make a decision? My point is, can you walk us through what you actually do to investigate these matters?
▶ 0:36:43Mr. Kirk: Inspector general's offices have significant numbers of staff up investigators, auditors. Their role is to collect the information from the agency --
▶ 0:36:55Sen. Moreno: Does that take 5, 6 minutes?
▶ 0:36:58Mr. Kirk: It takes months.
▶ 0:37:01Sen. Moreno: Mr. d'esposito, anything different?
▶ 0:37:05Mr. D'Esposito: I agree. I spent my adult career as an investigator in the new york city police department. I work for a few different mayors. Definitely don't agree with their political ideologies, but never once did I conduct an investigation or make an arrest based on someone's political ideologies.
▶ 0:37:23Sen. Moreno: Because you follow the law. That is your job.
▶ 0:37:25Mr. D'Esposito: I lived the oath and swore.
▶ 0:37:30Sen. Moreno: You are going to find the facts wherever they take you to make certain that you do your job that you are smart to do.
▶ 0:37:36Mr. D'Esposito: Exhaust every lead necessary.
▶ 0:37:39Sen. Moreno: Mr. moring, the department of war is a huge agency. You'll be charged with a big response ability. You are going to study these things thoroughly, make sure that you only look at facts, not hyperbole or innuendo. Is that correct?
▶ 0:37:55Mr. Moring: That is correct, senator. At the department, sources of investigation come from many places, it can come from senators, congressmen, hotline whistleblower complaints. There are procedures already in place in writing at the department which guide the initiation of investigations.
▶ 0:38:14Sen. Moreno: You swore to uphold the constitution and the law, to follow it no matter where it goes?
▶ 0:38:20Mr. Moring: Yes I do, senator.
▶ 0:38:23Sen. Moreno: To the judges, D.C., obviously a lot going on here. I assume the same standard holds for you, that you will follow the law and interpret the constitution as written? >> yes, senator.
▶ 0:38:37Sen. Moreno: Mr. forst, I will actually give back time and give you one piece of advice. Sell baby sell. I will turn that back over to the sherman.
▶ 0:38:50Chair Paul: Senator slotkin.
▶ 0:38:53Sen. Slotkin: Thank you to all of you for being here. Mr. moring, can you tell me, is the department of defense, inspector general, the position you are nominated for, that you would uphold the constitution, swear an oath to the constitution of the united states, correct?
▶ 0:39:23Sen. Slotkin: To uphold the laws of the united states? You are a lawyer, I geez don't have to be a lawyer, but as a lawyer, uphold the laws of the united states?
▶ 0:39:31Mr. Moring: Yes, senator.
▶ 0:39:33Sen. Slotkin: I am concerned about, in september, the president issued an executive order tasking the department of justice to come up with a list of domestic terrorist organizations. He gave a very broad definition of what domestic terrorist organizations were, including descriptors like anti-christian, different views on the family, religion, morality.
▶ 0:39:59Sen. Slotkin: There is also reports that the department of defense is participating in an interagency weaponization working group made up of people from people from the department of defense, cia, department of justice, irs, to go after the presidents adversaries or enemies. As the inspector general, you be expected to flag issues of law, investigate deeply problematic issues.
▶ 0:40:32Sen. Slotkin: If a department of defense intelligence agency like the nsa, dia, 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?
▶ 0:40:50Mr. Moring: Senator, my answer -- the answer to the question has to do with the role of the inspector general. I believe the general counsel at the department would be better able to address your question.
▶ 0:41:11Sen. Slotkin: This is just about law. I understand the id 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?
▶ 0:41:31Mr. Moring: The department ig only conducts oversight with regard to the department. If your question is limited to the department, it is possible the inspector general may have a role in determining whether or not those agencies followed their own policies.
▶ 0:41:49Sen. Slotkin: As an issue of law. Let's say the national security agency, which does wiretaps. I'm a former c.I.a. Officer, work with them all the time. Let's say the president of the united states task them to wiretap people attending the no kings rally in detroit, michigan. Would that be legal for the intelligence community, dod intelligence community to target american citizens for their political views?
▶ 0:42:17Mr. Moring: Senator, I appreciate your sentiment and concern, but it is not within the remit of the inspector general.
▶ 0:42:25Sen. Slotkin: But it is law. I would hope this would be a bipartisan thing. 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.
▶ 0:42:48Sen. Slotkin: I want you to say, separate from what you're remit would be, I want you to say publicly that we are not going to turn agencies like the cia, nsa against the american people. You are the last line of defense. You are the ig literally overseeing conduct of the department. If the intelligence agencies were asked to surveilled american citizens, what would you do? Would you open an investigation at a minimum?
▶ 0:43:19Sen. Slotkin: Would you push back at all? Or is it just ok now? God for bid this is just the way that we are going to be. The president says these are domestic terrorist organizations, 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 is against the law and also our values.
▶ 0:43:44Mr. Moring: Senator, I really appreciate your concern. 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.
▶ 0:43:57Sen. Slotkin: I would just say, it shouldn't 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.
▶ 0:44:09Chair Paul: I am perfectly willing to answer the question. You are exactly right, you should not be targeted for your religious beliefs. It is easier for me, I am my own agent, I can say what I want. They will be working for people. It is harder for them to have philosophical question with you.
▶ 0:44:31Chair Paul: Your questions are hypothetical ones, but there is a real question called arctic frost, administered by the biden administration, where nine members of congress were targeted with unconstitutional warrants. Given subpoenas for their geolocation. It was decided by the supreme court. You do have ownership for a privacy interest in that. They were illegally surveilled, nine members of congress.
▶ 0:44:57Chair Paul: If we are looking for a bipartisan criticism of surveillance run amok, that is a place we may want to start. Senator ernst.
▶ 0:45:05Sen. Ernst: Thank you. I agree. Thank you for being here today. I will double down on my calling from oklahoma's sentiment when we are looking at gsa, and making sure that we are divesting of all the real estate that sits out there unused across the great united states. I spent a lot of time digging into that area.
▶ 0:45:30Sen. Ernst: I chaired the senate doge caucus, had done my work in the united states senate for a number of years. I appreciate the senator from oklahoma addressing that issue. But there is another issue that I will continue on with con Mr. forst --, Mr. forst. This is the misuse of government credit cards.
▶ 0:46:01Sen. Ernst: In march, the 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 known as high risk merchants. Those high risk merchants include casinos, nightclubs, bars, places of that nature.
▶ 0:46:34Sen. Ernst: I cannot really see where we can justify government credit cards being used in those types of establishments. I don't know what kind of government work is going on there. Mr. forst, there are some definite improvements to gsa's smart pay program that we could implement. What are you thinking we can do to make that situation better and monitor those cards better for our taxpayers?
▶ 0:46:59Mr. Forst: Thank you very much for the question. Thanks for your support on the disposition of federal real estate. We will need your help. In terms of credit cards, other procurement activities that flow through the agency, there is a tremendous volume in dollars and numbers of transactions. We have to do our best to make sure we have our arms around that data.
▶ 0:47:23Mr. Forst: How we scrub that data and how we look at what is appropriate, not what people want to do but what people need to do with those kinds of programs. This also falls into the category of risk management. For all of these activities, what are risks that we identify, which ones can be absorbed, which ones can we mitigate, which ones should we eliminate? And not be surprised because there are risks that hit us that we had not thought about.
▶ 0:47:52Mr. Forst: Your thoughts, papers, meetings with all the members of the senate, we are very open to taking suggestions and learning from this and applying that, 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 maintain that process.
▶ 0:48:12Sen. Ernst: I look forward to working with you on that. We have also identified a number of former federal employees that have left government employee and take their credit cards with them and they still use them. I have introduced the decline act. With that, we would ensure charge cards are promptly deactivated once those employees are leaving government service.
▶ 0:48:38Sen. Ernst: 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. There are a number of easy ways that we could wrap our arms around this and make sure that taxpayer dollars are not being spent for personnel that should not be spending those dollars, may be inappropriately using those dollars. Mr.
▶ 0:49:06Sen. Ernst: Moring, in the minute I have left, I have introduced the cost act that would require a price tag to be attached to all pentagon r&d projects supported with taxpayer dollars. It was included in the fiscal year 2021 national defense authorization act, so it is long now. However, despite that, the pentagon has not implemented it, so they are not following the law.
▶ 0:49:38Sen. Ernst: 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 oig make it a priority to ensure china is getting less access to pentagon secrets and american citizens are getting more access?
▶ 0:50:07Mr. Moring: Senator, if confirmed, the department's inspector will exercise oversight over the policy implementation that you have incorporated into statute.
▶ 0:50:24Sen. Ernst: Thank you. It is law, so we are hopeful that we can follow up on that. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 0:50:32Chair Paul: Senator blumenthal.
▶ 0:50:36Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you for your being here today, commitment to public service. Mr. d'esposito, the position of inspector general should be above politics, insulated from politics, should be independent and objective. That goes for all the positions of inspector general.
▶ 0:51:02Sen. Blumenthal: 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.
▶ 0:51:12Mr. D'Esposito: Right now, my focus is on being confirmed to serve as inspector general of the united states labor department.
▶ 0:51:20Sen. Blumenthal: I know that is your focus now as you sit here. I'm asking for your commitment that you will not be a candidate.
▶ 0:51:26Mr. D'Esposito: With all due respect, as of today, my respect is to be confirmed as inspector general of the U.S. labor department. Having discussions about the future are questions that I cannot answer.
▶ 0:51:40Sen. 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, your campaign committee.
▶ 0:51:56Mr. D'Esposito: It is.
▶ 0:51:58Sen. Blumenthal: There are screenshots from your website on october 22, 2025. I am holding them up. You can probably see them, you are familiar with them, I am sure. It is your website. They are for your congressional committee which is apparently ongoing.
▶ 0:52:27Mr. D'Esposito: My website is still active but there hasn't been any fundraising or anything done with the committee.
▶ 0:52:35Sen. Blumenthal: On september 19, in the issue of the jewish times, you placed, or your congressional committee did, placed an ad on the occasion of rosh hashanah. That ad was on behalf of your campaign committee.
▶ 0:52:59Mr. D'Esposito: I will have to check with my campaign.
▶ 0:53:02Sen. Blumenthal: You will have to check with your campaign? It is here. How can we sit here and tell us that your focus is only on the id position when you have an active campaign committee, you are placing ads, you are offering peoplelawn signs. That sounds like a campaign to me.
▶ 0:53:27Mr. D'Esposito: The campaign website that is still active is not being updated, not use, there is no fundraising being done. There is not an active campaign.
▶ 0:53:36Sen. Blumenthal: When was the last contribution made to your campaign committee?
▶ 0:53:40Mr. D'Esposito: I would assume before the new year. I am not certain. I haven't done any active fundraising at all.
▶ 0:53:49Sen. Blumenthal: But you are still accepting campaign contributions, are you not?
▶ 0:53:54Mr. D'Esposito: I am not accepting them.
▶ 0:53:57Sen. Blumenthal: You are turning them away?
▶ 0:54:00Mr. D'Esposito: I'm not aware of any campaign contributions.
▶ 0:54:03Sen. Blumenthal: In an interview in newsday, on october 8, you are asked whether you would be a candidate. You declined to say, correct?
▶ 0:54:15Mr. D'Esposito: Yes.
▶ 0:54:18Sen. 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?
▶ 0:54:32Mr. D'Esposito: It was dismissed, yes.
▶ 0:54:35Sen. Blumenthal: Dismissed? Concluded and the complaints were dismissed?
▶ 0:54:40Mr. D'Esposito: Yes.
▶ 0:54:44Sen. Blumenthal: Let me ask Mr. kirk, the sba on its website had a special announcement which consisted in part of saying -- and I'm holding it up, screenshot. Senate democrats voted to block a clean federal funding bill, leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the U.S.
▶ 0:55:13Sen. Blumenthal: 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?
▶ 0:55:23Mr. Kirk: Thank you for the question. The hatch act is overseen by the office of special counsel, not within the jurisdiction of the office of inspector general.
▶ 0:55:32Sen. Blumenthal: I'm asking you to investigate an illegality within the sba. Will you commit to do it?
▶ 0:55:40Mr. Kirk: I will commit to working with you and your staff to investigate concerns of allegations. If I'm privileged to take on that role as the inspector general, I will work with you and your staff.
▶ 0:55:51Chair Paul: Senator moody.
▶ 0:55:55Sen. Moody: Thank you for the nominees for being here today. Often times in these hearings, you have a lot of what I would call drive-by insult and causation with little follow-up. It's 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.
▶ 0:56:27Sen. Moody: It was said by the ranking member that in your opening statement, you said that you would work to implement president trump's agenda or something to that extent. I went back and pulled her opening statement because that concerned me. An inspector general very much insures the agency is working aboveboard in compliance with laws and ethics come etc. That would be a primary responsibility.
▶ 0:56:52Sen. Moody: 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 the trust that their government, that do you working in their interest, that it is not working to promote itself or the people within it.
▶ 0:57:22Sen. Moody: I sat here shocked as I listen to another colleague say, will you make sure this government doesn't turn on its own people? I am thinking to myself, since I've been here as a united states senator, we discovered under the last administration, we were surveilling united states senators and in fact turning agencies, I would submit in many instances, and justifiably so, against people who may have questioned our election integrity.
▶ 0:57:54Sen. Moody: As a people, we should have the right to ask questions. It is our government. It is our government. So I commend you for saying and reconfirming that government exist to serve the people, not itself. And I saw within your opening statement, you said you want to put that mission forward, that government exist to serve the people through the work of the office of inspector general.
▶ 0:58:22Sen. Moody: Briefly, because I don't have a lot of time, would you like to clarify what may have been accused against you?
▶ 0:58:27Mr. D'Esposito: Thank you for the question. It was one that was also referenced in our first hearing in the health committee. President trump has a vision to rein in the golden age of the american worker. I don't believe that is partisan. I don't believe creating the fiercest, strongest military is partisan. I think that should be american. That is what I believe in, working hard.
▶ 0:58:51Sen. Moody: As inspector general, do you believe it is your job to ensure that people working for that agency are indeed following the ethical guidelines and the law of the united states and certainly the agency?
▶ 0:59:05Mr. D'Esposito: Absolutely. It is the same oath that I took as a new york city police detective. I take very seriously, as did my father who fought in world war ii.
▶ 0:59:19Sen. Moody: Along those lines of big sure this government is working for the people, I commend this president, all the people he has put in place to return this to a nation under the rule of law, indeed the law of the people, the law of the united states, the people's law.
▶ 0:59:39Sen. Moody: Though we want to create all of these narratives around the united states and what is playing out on tv, but looks like cesspools of chaos, whether portland or chicago, as people are coming out and sometimes obstructing or attacking or assaulting federal law enforcement officers trying to comply with the people's law, it is as if they are giving the finger to the people's will.
▶ 1:00:05Sen. Moody: 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. 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 achieve some radical agenda or partisan end, ignore the law.
▶ 1:00:33Sen. Moody: We have to have judges, to have security, to take what is presented to them and follow the law, and when appropriate under the law, impose a sentence for a crime that is committed when there is a conviction. Real quick, to our judges, associate judges that are not nominated, will you commit to following the people's law?
▶ 1:01:00Sen. Moody: 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? I will go down the line. Mr. troung. Ms. suttenberg.
▶ 1:01:22Ms. Suttenberg: Yes.
▶ 1:01:24Sen. Moody: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:01:35Chair Paul: Senator hassan.
▶ 1:01:40Sen. Hassan: Thank you, chair paul, ranking member peters for holding this important hearing. To all nominees, thank you for your willingness to serve. Congratulations to your families as well. I will follow up where senator moody was going, a question that I now ask every hearing involving nominations. It is a straightforward one. Rep.
▶ 1:02:03Sen. Hassan: D'esposito, I have asked you this question and others at your prior hearing but I want you to answer with the other nominees. Mr. forst on Mr. arrington, Mr. cork Mr. moring, Rep. 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.
▶ 1:02:26Mr. Moring: Senator, I don't think I would ever be put in that position.
▶ 1:02:30Sen. Hassan: Let's be clear before anybody else says 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 ig's that this president did. I want to be clear because a number of you hesitated and said it is under appeal. It is not. The court found it is an illegal firing.
▶ 1:02:57Sen. Hassan: There is nothing under appeal because the court decided not to reinstate those ids illegally fired because the judge concluded that the president with them fire them under the legal process. The only thing that is at issue is backpay. That is an example of this president of the united states breaking the law. If you are instructed to break a law by the president, will you follow the law or in follow the president's directive?
▶ 1:03:19Mr. Moring: Realizing that is a hypothetical, I will never do anything in my office and if confirmed, that is illegal.
▶ 1:03:27Sen. Hassan: I want a yes or no.
▶ 1:03:30Mr. Moring: I will follow the law.
▶ 1:03:32Sen. Hassan: 2.
▶ 1:03:35Mr. D'Esposito: I believe president trump is a man of integrity. I don't believe him or his administration would asked me to break the law. As I've done in my career, I will always follow the law.
▶ 1:03:46Sen. Hassan: Your answer defies the factual record. Mr. kirk, go ahead.
▶ 1:03:51Mr. Kirk: I also believe I would not be put in that position but I can always commit to, as my colleagues have stated, to follow the law and the statutory obligations of the attorney general to follow the law.
▶ 1:04:04Sen. Hassan: Mr. arrington.
▶ 1:04:06Mr. Arrington: Yes. Thank you for the question. Again, I pose that would be a hypothetical, but as a veteran, I have sworn an oath to the constitution.
▶ 1:04:16Sen. Hassan: Mr. forst.
▶ 1:04:18Mr. Forst: As we spoke yesterday, I don't expect to be asked that come but I will take an oath of office, and I will follow that.
▶ 1:04:24Sen. Hassan: There is plenty on the factual record of this president not only breaking the law but instructing others to break the law. You may want to brush up on that. Let me turn to the nominees for judicial seats. Mr. truong, Ms. suttenberg, Mr. ricard, do you commit to applying the law fairly and indefinitely without fever or bias and to reject any attempts by outside parties to influence you make?
▶ 1:04:49Mr. Troung: Senator, if I have the privilege to be confirmed as a judge, I am duty-bound to follow the law and the president.
▶ 1:04:57Sen. Hassan: Yes or no because I'm running out of time. Ms. suttenberg?
▶ 1:05:03Ms. Suttenberg: Yes.
▶ 1:05:05Sen. Hassan: Mr. kirk, Rep. d'esposito, Mr. moring, will you work in a transparent way with government officials? I need a yes or no because I'm running out of time. >> I will investigate conflicts of interest.
▶ 1:05:25Sen. Hassan: Will you do it in a transparent way? Rep. d'esposito? Mr. moring. >> yes I will, senator.
▶ 1:05:36Sen. Hassan: Gentlemen, could we have a little order on the dais? Thank you for the three of you for your commitment. Recent reporting states the president has two claims pending against department of justice in which he is asking the department, part of his government staff, his hand pick people to approve a payment of $230 million in taxpayer money to him.
▶ 1:06:02Sen. Hassan: Even the president himself recognizes how absurd and inappropriate this conflict of interest is. He stated, this is what president trump said, "I am the one that makes the decision, right? That decision would have to go across my desk and it is awfully strange to make a decision where I am paying myself." if confirmed as 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?
▶ 1:06:31Mr. Kirk: Thank you for the question. As I mentioned previously, I would, under my statutory responsibility, investigate all allegations of violations of law.
▶ 1:06:41Sen. Hassan: Do you consider the president of united states directing an agency that reports to him or that he considers reporting to him, to pay him money and actual conflict of interest?
▶ 1:06:54Mr. Kirk: I am not familiar with the facts of the matter.
▶ 1:06:57Sen. Hassan: I asked you to respond to a quote. I will move on to Rep. d'esposito.
▶ 1:07:01Mr. D'Esposito: If confirmed, albeit independent and objective oversight through audits and investigations through the department of labor.
▶ 1:07:08Sen. Hassan: If the president tried to authorize taxpayer money to himself, would you investigate that as a conflict of interest? Mr. moring, yes or no?
▶ 1:07:19Mr. Moring: No. The defense department does not conduct oversight of the white house.
▶ 1:07:24Sen. Hassan: That is extraordinary.
▶ 1:07:28Chair Paul: Senator holland. Supple holland congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here. I want to start with you, Mr. troung, Ms. suttenberg, Mr. ricard. You have been nominated and we put you right together in the middle. You been nominated to the D.C. superior court. I want to ask you a question or two about your additional philosophy. I want to start by referencing a picture that one maybe come up behind me.
▶ 1:07:56Chair Paul: This is a photo that you may have seen before, not a pleasant one. But it did occur right here in the district. This is edward, 19 years old when this photo was taken. This was from july of this year. He was a government employee at the time. This is in logan circle in the district. He was out one evening with his girlfriend when he was attacked, he and his female friend were attacked by a roving band of teenagers who left him in this condition.
▶ 1:08:25Chair Paul: Beat him pretty badly as you can see. He was able to get his female friend in the car safe, then turned and confronted the whole band of them himself. This is the condition he was left in. Looks pretty violent to me. But when the assault assailants were taken before the D.C.
▶ 1:08:45Chair Paul: Superior court, the relevant judge, kendra briggs, who I'm sad to say was reported favorably out of this committee, she gave the assailants zero prison time. Zero prison time. What she said was, the purpose of sentencing is not punishment, that is a quote, not punishment, it is rehabilitation.
▶ 1:09:14Chair Paul: Apparently, she thinks allowing people who do that type of thing to 19-year-olds, allowing them to get up without any punishment is rehabilitative. That is its own interesting question. I want to ask you for us, do you agree the purpose of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation? I would like to hear from each of you on this. Mr. troung, we will start with you.
▶ 1:09:35Mr. Troung: Thank you, senator. My approach to sentencing is to consider the presentencing report of the defendant witness, victim statement, community impact statement, any recommendation from the prosecutor's --
▶ 1:09:52Sen. Hawley: What is the purpose of sentencing, what is your philosophy?
▶ 1:09:55Mr. Troung: My approach to sentencing is to consider all of the facts, apply the law, to impose sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime.
▶ 1:10:06Sen. Hawley: Do you think punishment is an appropriate aspect of sentencing?
▶ 1:10:10Mr. Troung: That is one factor to consider within the context of the approach of sentencing.
▶ 1:10:16Sen. Hawley: Do you agree with judge biggs, that the purpose of sentencing is not punishment but rehabilitation?
▶ 1:10:26Mr. Troung: I appear in court so many times that I have the reflex of referring to the honorific title. I don't have the information to -- that judge briggs had in front of her. I need to be circumspect in my response. As a judicial nominee, I should refrain from commenting on issues that may appear before me.
▶ 1:10:51Sen. Hawley: I'm not asking you to comment on this case. This case is over. I'm not asking you about her, I'm asking 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?
▶ 1:11:19Mr. Troung: My sentencing philosophy is to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime and impose consequences that are deserved within the context of studying the facts and applying the law to the facts.
▶ 1:11:30Sen. Hawley: I wish you would be a little more circumspect. Ms. suttenberg.
▶ 1:11:35Ms. Suttenberg: I cannot speak to the particular case -- as a prosecutor fighting crime, I'm committed -- when it comes to sentencing, I think there are important -- retribution determines and -- given the severity of the crime, you have to look -- in any particular case.
▶ 1:12:05Sen. Hawley: Should keep in the public safe to be a major goal of sentencing? Shoot keeping violent offenders off of our streets be a goal of sentencing?
▶ 1:12:16Ms. Suttenberg: Absolutely agree.
▶ 1:12:18Sen. Hawley: Mr. ricard, what about you?
▶ 1:12:21Mr. Rickard: I would follow the law of the district of columbia that considers a number of factors including the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the offender, a sentence that provides deterrence to the individual to tender and general deterrence to the community. The third factor does consider rehabilitation.
▶ 1:12:42Sen. Hawley: Last question, Mr. chairman. You agree that protecting the public and getting violent offenders off the street is an important goal of sentencing?
▶ 1:12:51Mr. Rickard: That is the deterrence that I mention. Making sure that someone who committed a violent crime, likely to do so again, cannot do so.
▶ 1:13:00Sen. Hawley: We will have a question for the rest of you on the panel. I am sure that you are disappointed that I did not get to ask any.
▶ 1:13:07Chair Paul: We have had some discussion about the necessity for independence of particularly the inspector general's, obviously the judges, to be free of partisanship. It is incredibly important. I don't want to downplay that at all. But we also have to accept you at your word if you say that you'll be impartial. If they choose not to believe you, that is one thing. But your comments should be treated with respect.
▶ 1:13:36Chair Paul: I'm a big fan of the inspector general program. I will give you one example where we learn something incredibly important, from the defense inspector general. During covid, it became aware that there were a lot of facts pointing to buy that the virus may have come from a lab in wuhan, not from a wet market, animals.
▶ 1:13:59Chair Paul: One of the biggest things we got was from a whistleblower, a colonel who said the people come the lab closest to the wet market, people were saying it may have come from, they submitted a proposal to darpa in 2018, and it looked a lot like what the virus became. They were talking about creating a virus with a certain ability to enter the cells which was unusual in coronaviruses.
▶ 1:14:27Chair Paul: Then the same people promoting that two years before didn't get the money. Then this research project was hidden. People said it was a smoking gun and pointed heavily toward the lab in wuhan. We only heard about it through and inspector general. It's important that that inspector general did not look at it a, I'm going to protect president trump or president biden, so it's important. The same with the judges.
▶ 1:14:55Chair Paul: We have gone through four years of lawfare where president trump has been attacked repeatedly, changing the law so they can go after him. They said there was a statute of limitations on the claim of the one woman in new york. They just change the statute of limitations. They bundled records complaints, bundled 30 of them and made them into -- bundled 30 of them and made them into felonies.
▶ 1:15:27Chair Paul: They did things with the law. It is a lot of golf for them to come forward and lecture us and lecture republican members about how you are going to be impartial. I want you to be. I don't want you to go back and say this is my time for retribution. I want you all to be bigger than that. There is probably very few in the senate who are as ecumenical and as evenhanded as I am.
▶ 1:15:54Chair Paul: I have not always been apologizing. I have been one of the republicans who is unafraid to criticize the president on policy more than anybody else. The thing is we do expect that in our civil servants. Can you comment on how you would approach the job as an impartial judge and as an inspector general?
▶ 1:16:19Mr. Moring: Yes, senator. My background is being a law clerk for a federal judge, where I had to give the judge my best independent legal advice. I've 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.
▶ 1:16:47Mr. Moring: 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. So I feel that this background, and also my military background as lt.
▶ 1:17:14Mr. Moring: Col., having to work through problems in afghanistan -- I have made a career of independent legal advice.
▶ 1:17:22Chair Paul: In the military, rising to that rank -- there is a long history in the military of trying to treat things objectively and not bring religion or politics into things. You have been a politician, Mr. d esposito. You have seen the barbs on both sides. Are you willing and able and will you pledge not to be a politician, to be an inspector general and evaluate things?
▶ 1:17:59Mr. D'Esposito: I spent most of my adult life in the public service world. Back home, I served as chief from two thousand nine to 2016. I was an incident commander during hurricane sandy, and 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 a chief, never once did political ideology come in place.
▶ 1:18:27Mr. D'Esposito: 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, retired from the department with 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 a politically motivated.
▶ 1:18:57Mr. D'Esposito: Then I came to congress and I was named one of the most bipartisan members of the 118th congress.
▶ 1:19:03Chair Paul: I appreciate your service and will take you at your word. With that, that concludes our hearing. Thank you all for coming today. The nominees have filed responses to biographical and financial questions and answered prehearing questions. They have also submitted open statements. Everything has been reviewed by the office of government ethics. The committee has received some letters of support for the nominees. All of this will be made part of the record.
▶ 1:19:33Chair Paul: Without objection, this will be made part of the hearing record, along with the financial data which is on file. The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.