The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONFIRMATION OF ERIC J. SOSKIN” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S7967 on Dec. 29, 2020.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONFIRMATION OF ERIC J. SOSKIN
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, for over 40 years, inspectors general have acted as independent, nonpartisan watchdogs tasked with preventing and uncovering fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. Simply put, inspectors general make sure government is doing what it's supposed to do. To accomplish this immense task, inspectors general must be experienced in oversight, trusted by both political parties, and ready to hit the ground running on any audits, investigations, and other reviews of their agencies.
Unfortunately, the nominee for inspector general that we considered last week does not meet this basic test.
The Department of Transportation is charged with ensuring that America has the safest, most efficient and modern transportation system in the world, so that Americans are able to travel safely and efficiently by road, rail, or air. The Department has an annual budget of over $87 billion and employs over 55,000 personnel, with a footprint in every State.
The DOT inspector general must be ready to oversee the full range of these activities, from every dollar that funds our highways to every safety decision issued by DOT regulators. To meet this task, the office employs over 400 personnel, with an annual budget of over $94 million.
Eric Soskin, the nominee for DOT inspector general, is not qualified to oversee an agency of this size and scope, or to lead the activities of one of the largest Offices of Inspector General in the Federal Government. Mr. Soskin does not have any experience managing large organizations. He has never worked in an Office of Inspector General, and he does not have experience in many of the basic activities of such an office, like audits or inspections. Although he has legal experience, he has not focused on DOT or transportation issues at any point in his career.
While I appreciate Mr. Soskin's service at the Department of Justice and his enthusiasm for the position, he simply lacks the qualifications to ensure DOT is fulfilling its responsibilities.
I am most troubled, however, by the increasing politicization of inspectors general by the President and by the majority.
Since 1981, this body has confirmed over 150 inspectors general; until last week, all but two of these nominees had been confirmed by unanimous consent, a voice vote, or a unanimous vote. The reason for this is simple: To do their jobs, inspectors general must be trusted by each member of Congress and by every American, regardless of political party.
Until this Congress, when an inspector general has faced significant opposition, the Senate either worked through any concerns or declined to advance the nomination. The majority did not force through partisan or unqualified nominees. That is how we have upheld this institution. That is how we have maintained trust in the independence, qualifications, and integrity of inspectors general.
This Congress, we held our first party-line vote in 40 years to confirm a deeply partisan inspector general nominee. We have now confirmed yet another inspector general on a party-line vote during a lameduck session, with a nominee who was already rejected by nearly half of the Commerce Committee and as well as on the Senate floor.
The inspector general is a position that continues across administrations. It is one with tremendous authority to look at every agency record, to interview any employee, and to carry out criminal investigations. We cannot transform this institution into one of Democratic inspectors general and Republican inspectors general. This is not and cannot become a political position.
Inspectors General hold government accountable to the law and to the American people. And it is our responsibility to protect this institution and reject any nomination that will undermine their independent, nonpartisan work.
____________________
