Hearings to examine the nominations of Joshua Simmons, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Metzger, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis.

1[Senate Hearing 119-264]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-26456                             OPEN HEARING:7                   NOMINATIONS OF PETER METZGER TO BE8                ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND9                 ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE10                   TREASURY AND JOSHUA SIMMONS TO BE11                     GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CENTRAL12                          INTELLIGENCE AGENCY1314=======================================================================1516                                HEARING1718                               before the1920                    SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE2122                                 OF THE2324                          UNITED STATES SENATE2526                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2728                             FIRST SESSION29                               __________3031                            OCTOBER 8, 202532                               __________3334      Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence3536               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov39                                ______4041                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE424362-542                    WASHINGTON : 20264445                    SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE4647           (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.)4849                     TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman50                MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman5152JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon53SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico54JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine55JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado56JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York57MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia58TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  MARK KELLY, Arizona59TED BUDD, North Carolina60                  JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ex Officio61                CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio62                ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ex Officio63                  JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio6465                              ----------6667                       Ryan Tully, Staff Director68                  William Wu, Minority Staff Director69                     Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk7071                            C O N T E N T S7273                              ----------7475                            OCTOBER 8, 20257677                           OPENING STATEMENTS7879                                                                   Page8081Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas...........................     182Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia.......................     383Mike Rounds, U.S. Senator from South Dakota......................     58485                               WITNESSES8687Peter Metzger, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence88  and Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury..................     789    Prepared Statement...........................................     990Joshua Simmons, Nominee to be General Counsel of the Central91  Intelligence Agency............................................    1192    Prepared Statement...........................................    139394                         SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL9596Nomination Material for Peter Metzger97    Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    3198    Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    5199    Post-Hearing Questions.......................................    63100Nomination Material for Joshua Simmons101    Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    67102    Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    83103    Post-Hearing Questions.......................................   119104Coalition Letter Submitted by Senator Wyden......................   128105106 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATIONS OF PETER METZGER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY107 FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY108 AND JOSHUA SIMMONS TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE109                                 AGENCY110111                              ----------112113                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2025114115                                       U.S. Senate,116                          Select Committee on Intelligence,117                                                    Washington, DC.118    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m., in119Room SD-G50, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom120Cotton, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.121    Present: Senators Cotton (presiding), Warner, Risch,122Cornyn, Lankford, Rounds, Young, Budd, Wyden, Heinrich, King,123Bennet, Ossoff, and Kelly.124125      OPENING STATEMENT BY HON. TOM COTTON, A U.S. SENATOR126                        FROM ARKANSAS127128    Chairman Cotton. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to129order. I'd like to welcome you all to today's hearing to130consider the nominations of Mr. Peter Metzger, to be the131Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the132Department of Treasury, and Mr. Josh Simmons, to be General133Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.134    I would like to remind all of those in attendance that135while you are welcome to observe today's hearing, Vice Chairman136Warner and I agree that we will not allow disruptions by the137audience. Audience members may not verbally or physically138distract from the hearing, including by shouting, standing,139raising signs, or making gestures that block the view of other140members of the audience. Put simply, we came here to hear from141Mr. Metzger and Mr. Simmons, not from you. If I have to have142anyone removed from this hearing, I will take further action to143have you barred from the committee's future proceedings, coming144within a country mile of the committee's rooms and spaces in145the Capitol, and barring you from the Capitol. Our goal is to146conduct this hearing--our goal in conducting this hearing is to147enable the committee to begin consideration of the nominee's148qualifications.149    (Disruption in the gallery.)150    Chairman Cotton. The only genocide that has happened since151October 7th is the genocide that Hamas perpetrated against the152Jewish people.153    Is there anyone else who would like to get it off their154chest now to save us time?155    All right. Each nominee here has provided substantive156written responses to dozens of questions presented by the157committee. Today, of course, Members will be able to ask158additional questions and hear from the nominees.159    Let me first begin by thanking both nominees for their160willingness to once again answer the call to public service.161I'd also like to recognize and thank their families and loved162ones, many of whom are sitting right behind them, for offering163their encouragement and support.164    Throughout their careers, both nominees before the165committee have given their time and talents to our Nation. Many166of those on this Committee have had the pleasure to work with167Mr. Metzger, who currently serves as a professional staff168member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. As a169designee to Senator Rounds, Mr. Metzger has spent his time with170this Committee covering issue areas including the CIA, FBI,171covert action, counterintelligence, the Middle East and Africa.172    Mr. Metzger, as Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and173Analysis at the Treasury, you will be expected to support the174U.S. Government with timely intelligence on economic security175concerns, financial intelligence matters, and the176implementation of economic statecraft tools. This is a critical177position, especially as Communist China wages an economic and178technical war to dominate the emerging technologies and works179to displace the United States as the predominant economic180military power in the world.181    Next, we have Mr. Simmons, who is currently the Principal182Deputy Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. During183his time at the State Department, Mr. Simmons has worked on184foreign policy and national security matters, including185intelligence sharing, covert action, and the law of armed186conflict. Mr. Simmons also previously spent time in private law187practice where he handled international arbitration disputes188pertaining to national security.189    Mr. Simmons, as CIA general counsel, you will be expected190to provide timely and efficient legal guidance in support of191ongoing worldwide intelligence operations. The work of the192General Counsel's office touches every aspect of the Agency's193business, including the procurement of resources, handling of194personnel matters, facilitating lawful intelligence collection,195and conducting Presidentially authorized covert action.196    This Committee is committed to ensuring our intelligence197agencies and officers return to the core mission of collecting198clandestine foreign intelligence. After years of misplaced199priorities, allowed bureaucratic bloat, risk aversion and200political judgment masquerading as legal advice to creep into201America's intelligence apparatus, it is time to right the ship.202With this in mind, I look forward to hearing from our nominees203on how they plan to approach their respective roles.204    Again, thank you both for being here and once again205answering the call to public service.206    I now recognize our distinguished vice chairman for any207opening remarks.208209    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR210                         FROM VIRGINIA211212    Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And213first, let me congratulate both witnesses on your nominations.214While your roles may not attract the same public attention as215the DNI or the CIA Director, your responsibilities are no less216vital to our national security. You'll play a key role in217ensuring that our intelligence agencies operate both lawfully218and effectively. And Peter, as you particularly know, this219Committee doesn't do a lot of things in public hearings.220    And I do want to share some of my concerns as we go into221these unprecedented times, because, to me, it feels like there222are new precedents being set virtually every day. Recently, the223Secretary of Defense pulled hundreds of military officers from224their duties to lecture them on grooming standards and urged225them to ignore ``stupid'' rules of engagement, even as Europe226is engaged in a land war with Russia and China threatens227Taiwan.228    The President then went further, encouraging the use of229American cities as ``training grounds'' for the military while230deploying armed soldiers to occupy cities and arrest American231citizens--deployments that courts, including judges he232appointed, have ruled illegal. To their credit, those officers233at Quantico responded with the professionalism and nonpartisan234discipline we expect from our men and women in uniform. But the235sheer lack of respect shown by President Trump and Secretary236Hegseth for our military and for the rule of law should concern237all of us.238    But this is not just a matter of respect. I believe the239President and some in his administration are continuing to take240actions that make America less safe. Early in his term the241President boasted about the capture of the ISIS terrorist242responsible for the Kabul bombing that killed 13 American243servicemembers, but he did not highlight how he had actually244fired the head of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division245responsible for that very investigation.246    That was not an isolated decision. He also fired the head247of the FBI branch that takes down criminal organizations and248drug traffickers, as well as leaders in the Bureau's249Intelligence and Cyber Divisions, even as--both of you250gentlemen know--our adversaries are working around-the-clock to251spy on Americans and penetrate our critical infrastructure252through ventures like Salt Typhoon. He has dismissed the heads253of major field offices from Washington and Miami, again one of254the biggest drug enforcement hubs in our country. Together with255the FBI Director, he has forced out thousands of experienced256agents for reasons that appear more political than prescient,257including reports from FBI agents who refused to lie about the2582020 election, and frankly for reasons that appear more petty259than performance-based--like being friends with public critics260of the President.261    According to court filings, even Director Patel has262recently acknowledged that these actions may be illegal, but263said that his position depended on removing those agents.264    And this is the really shocking news, and I ask all my265colleagues to listen. In recent months, nearly a quarter of the266FBI agents who handle counterterrorism, cyber, espionage and267other criminal cases, have been assigned to immigration cases.268In some field offices, that number goes up to 45 percent,269firing or transferring agents who investigate terrorists, drug270traffickers, and sexual predators, and pulling back cyber271expertise targeting Chinese and Russian hackers does not make272America feel safe.273    Sadly, I feel like, again--and I've talked to my colleagues274about this. This is only a fraction of the damage done to our275national security in the last nine months. Across the276Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, the Treasury,277and Justice, career experts with decades of service, many in278combat zones, are being pushed out not for poor performance,279but for refusing to put loyalty to political narratives above280their oath to the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the281infrastructure that the first Trump administration set up in2822018, in a really good move, to ensure safe and secure283elections--and it was remarkable what they did in 2018, going284after Russian troll farms, Chinese threats to local candidates,285and Iranian attempts to stoke violence--all of that operation286has been dismantled.287    And just this week it was reported in the Wall Street288Journal that DHS disbanded a Federal team that once pursued289child traffickers and a task force that once focused on290stemming the flow of fentanyl. I just don't understand how291that's making America safer.292    Now, Mr. Simmons and Mr. Metzger, you may wonder what this293has to do with you and the jobs that you are being nominated294for, and you both bring significant relevant experience to295these nominations. Mr. Simmons, as a former UVA law professor296and principal legal adviser at the State Department; and Mr.297Metzger, as we all know, he was a former senior staffer on this298Committee. You've both served in roles where speaking truth to299power and upholding the law are core responsibilities. If300confirmed to these new roles, you will be called upon to301demonstrate that same commitment to speaking truth to power and302to upholding the rule of law, even when doing so is politically303inconvenient. And I believe this moment is not about partisan304politics. It is about whether America will maintain an305Intelligence Community that can operate independently and306provide unvarnished assessments of challenges we face. You know307better than most that our adversaries are not letting up. Day308after day, we see intelligence about how they are becoming more309creative, more aggressive, and more coordinated in their310efforts to weaken our country.311    I worry that the holes the administration is creating in312our national security enterprise leaves Americans dangerously313vulnerable. Mr. Metzger and Mr. Simmons, if you are confirmed,314the men and women you will lead and the American people will315expect nothing less than your absolute devotion to be truth.316Today, I look forward to hearing how each of you intends to317uphold that solemn responsibility.318    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.319    Chairman Cotton. I would now like to recognize Senator320Rounds for a few words of support of Mr. Metzger, who allegedly321performed outstanding work for him.322323     STATEMENT OF HON. M. MICHAEL ROUNDS, A U.S. SENATOR324                       FROM SOUTH DAKOTA325326    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will dispense327with the hazing to begin with here.328    Today, I do have the unique privilege of saying a few words329about my former designated staff member on the committee, Mr.330Peter Metzger.331    Serving four years on this professional staff, Peter332managed some of our Nation's most sensitive and complex333intelligence matters with extraordinary expertise and334attention. During his tenure, he covered covert action, the335Federal Bureau of Investigation, counter-intelligence, the336Middle East, and other specialized intelligence portfolios,337demonstrating an impressive breadth of knowledge and commitment338to serve wherever called.339    He conducted critical intelligence oversight in over 35340countries during his tenure, monitoring key intelligence341outposts across the globe, and helped to author imperative342legislation that bolstered the Intelligence Community and made343our country safer.344    I had the privilege to get to know Peter personally during345this time, and can attest to his tremendous professionalism,346devotion to mission and high character. He was a great support347and resource to me in carrying out my responsibilities as a348Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I want to349express my gratitude for that.350    As such, it is no wonder that President Trump had the351confidence in him to nominate Peter for Assistant Secretary of352the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. This nomination is353the next step in a life's work of service to our Nation, first354as an attorney, then as a United States Marine Corps officer,355and most recently, as a policy adviser and national security356expert in the highest levels of the United States Government.357    I highlight his time in the White House on the National358Security Council staff as a special assistant to the President359where, as then former National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien360said: Peter's expertise proved vital to the President. I361certainly expect this to hold true in his next role.362    I have no doubt that if confirmed, Peter will serve our363country admirably in this post. And in that event, we will look364forward to seeing you back here often.365    I would also like to note that it has been an exciting time366in the Metzger family lately. Peter and his wife Tippi welcomed367their son into the family in August; and not 2 weeks later, the368President nominated him for assistant secretary. Now, I know369one of those things is a whole lot more important than the370other; but nonetheless, I believe it is a great testament to371your growing family's devotion to service. So, congratulations,372Peter and Tippi.373    And Tippi, we want to thank you for your support during his374nomination process, knowing that this is indeed a family375endeavor.376    The position to which Mr. Metzger has been nominated is377responsible for the analysis and dissemination of financial378intelligence across the government. Through Peter's legal379background, service in uniform, service in the Intelligence380Community, time in the White House, and time on this Committee,381I believe we are hard pressed to find anyone more suited to the382task.383    If confirmed, Members of this Committee should find great384comfort in having a public servant of this caliber in this385role.386    In closing, I want to offer my strongest endorsement of Mr.387Metzger to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for388Intelligence and Analysis. Owing to Peter's demonstrated389commitment to service, his wealth of national security390expertise and his unimpeachable character, I have the utmost391confidence that if confirmed he will bring great credit to the392Department and the Executive branch.393    Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.394    Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Rounds.395    I am shocked and disappointed the one-month-old Metzger boy396isn't here with us; but years from now when you reflect on it,397I am sure the Simmons children will assure him that he didn't398miss anything, because it was very boring. [Laughter.]399    Gentlemen, before we move on to your opening statements, we400have five customary questions we ask of all witnesses who401appear before the committee, so if we could get just a simple402yes or no answer for the record. If you want the keys to the403test, the correct answer is yes. If it is no, it will require404an immediate and extended explanation.405    One, do you agree to appear before the committee here or in406other venues when invited?407    Mr. Metzger. Yes.408    Mr. Simmons. Yes.409    Chairman Cotton. Two, If confirmed, do you agree to send410officials from your office to appear before the committee and411designated staff when invited?412    Mr. Metzger. Yes.413    Mr. Simmons. Yes.414    Chairman Cotton. Three, do you agree to provide documents415or any other materials requested by the committee in order for416it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?417    Mr. Metzger. Yes.418    Mr. Simmons. Yes.419    Chairman Cotton. Four, will you ensure that your office and420your staff provide such material to the committee when421requested?422    Mr. Metzger. Yes.423    Mr. Simmons. Yes.424    Chairman Cotton. And five, do you agree to inform and fully425brief to the full extent possible all Members of this Committee426of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only427the chairman and vice chairman?428    Mr. Metzger. Yes.429    Mr. Simmons. Yes.430    Chairman Cotton. Thank you both very much. After our431hearing today, for the benefit of Members, it is my intention432to move quickly to convene a committee business meeting to vote433on the nominations and report them to the Senate for prompt434floor consideration.435    We will now proceed with our nominees' opening statements,436after which I'll recognize Members by seniority at the gavel437for five minutes each.438    Mr. Metzger, we will start with you and then go to Mr.439Simmons.440441    STATEMENT OF PETER METZGER, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION OF442   ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND443                            ANALYSIS444445    Mr. Metzger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.446    Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and Members of this447Committee: It is a tremendous honor to appear before you today448as you consider my nomination to serve as Assistant Secretary449of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis.450    I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for451all of the blessings of this life, including this opportunity452today; my wife Tippi, who is here today, and our newborn son453for their endless love and support; President Trump, for this454opportunity to again serve our country; and Secretary Bessent,455for his confidence in me. I would also like to thank my family,456including my mother and father, and the mentors, former457colleagues, and close friends present at this hearing and458watching from afar who have helped shape my career and459professional development in the practice of law, in the United460States Marine Corps, in U.S. Special Operations Command, in the461Intelligence Community, in multiple Executive branch national462security roles, and certainly here on the staff of this august463committee.464    Service to our country runs in my family. I am the fourth465U.S. Marine Officer in my family and the second to have served466in the Intelligence Community. It has been a high honor not467only to continue the tradition, but also uniquely gratifying to468have spent nearly two decades at the forefront of our country's469national security. I should point out, as well, that my wife470Tippi has similarly dedicated her own career to public service471and national security. I am immeasurably proud of the472sacrifices she has made on behalf of our country. She inspires473me daily with her devotion both to our family and to her own474professional duties.475    Am I to be confirmed, it would be a unique privilege to476lead one of the 18 components of the U.S. Intelligence477Community. Understanding firsthand the hard and often anonymous478nature of intelligence work, it would be an honor to again call479the men and women of the Intelligence Community colleagues,480especially in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.481    My career to date has afforded me incredible service482opportunities, often granting unfettered access to the483collection and utilization of intelligence to inform national484security policy decisions. During President Trump's first term,485I had the opportunity to serve in the Office of the Secretary486of Defense directing Syria policy, and later, on the staff of487the National Security Council at the White House. On the NSC488staff, I led the President's policies on the Levant and later,489as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security490Affairs, I helped lead the development of the President's491Middle East and North Africa policy.492    Since 2021, I have had the privilege to serve on the493professional staff of this Committee where my oversight494portfolio responsibilities have included, among others, covert495action, the Middle East, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,496counterintelligence, and other specific specialized497intelligence programs.498    Treasury's critical role in both regulating domestic499financial markets and leveraging the might of the U.S.500financial system toward U.S. foreign policy goals is501formidable. Yet still, my experience, having executed dozens of502tailored sanctions designations in the White House from503different authorities, including Executive Orders and504congressionally drafted legislation, provided me the505opportunity to witness the exceptional power of the U.S.506financial system in achieving statecraft on behalf of the507United States. The power of the U.S. financial system is one of508the greatest tools of the U.S. national security apparatus.509Treasury's intelligence collection and analysis are critical to510this instrument of national power and to the President's511ability to wield as much.512    If confirmed, I would bring to bear my own intelligence and513policy experience while leveraging an exemplary existing team514within OIA. Likewise, if confirmed, I would prioritize515effective task organization of the OIA team toward the516President and the Secretary's objectives; ensure focused517analysis of narco-terrorist and legacy terror organizations;518partner with IC colleagues to enhance collection on illicit519financial activities of the adversarial nation state actors520including Iran, China, Russia and North Korea; and finally, I521would assess the counterintelligence posture of OIA personnel522and Treasury infrastructure to enhance defenses against new and523emerging threats.524    As an alumnus of this Committee's staff, I pledge my525continued commitment to robust Congressional intelligence526oversight and cooperation therewith.527    Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your528questions.529    [The written statement of the witness follows:]530531    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]532533    Chairman Cotton. Thank you.534    Mr. Simmons.535536STATEMENT OF JOSHUA SIMMONS, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR537                THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY538539    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman540Warner, and distinguished Members of the Committee, for the541opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee to be542General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.543    I am grateful to President Trump, Director Ratcliffe, and544Deputy Director Ellis for their trust and confidence in me. I545also appreciate the opportunity I have had to meet with several546of you before this hearing to discuss a number of important547issues.548    I want to thank my colleagues at the State Department.549Secretary Rubio and other leaders at State have been advancing550important U.S. interests in foreign policy and national551security. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with552them.553    I understand that, if confirmed, I would not be the first554attorney to have served in the Office of the Legal Adviser at555the State Department and then as General Counsel of the CIA. I556think there are good reasons for this. The offices have similar557sizes, similarly talented lawyers, and similar missions558advising national security matters. Both offices also confront559legal issues of great complexity and, often, urgency. These560issues require judgment and wisdom that cannot be learned from561a textbook, and I am grateful to my colleagues in the Office of562the Legal Adviser for sharing years of on-the-ground563experience.564    If confirmed as General Counsel, I would use this565experience to help the CIA navigate the many challenges our566country faces. Director Ratcliffe has spoken to you about these567challenges. They include the Chinese Communist Party,568transnational drug-trafficking cartels, and the Russia-Ukraine569war. At the same time, we are seeing rapidly emerging570technologies from artificial intelligence to quantum computing571that could define the future of our national security.572    The General Counsel of the CIA is responsible for573supporting the CIA's mission in facing these challenges, with574fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. This means575protecting not only American national security, but also576Americans' civil liberties. If confirmed, I would seek to577advance these interests in three primary ways.578    First, I would provide objective, clear, and timely legal579advice to enable the CIA's mission. The CIA operates under580statutory authority and under the President's direction. I581would lead the Office of General Counsel in ensuring that the582CIA operates in accordance with the law.583    Second, I would work closely with lawyers across the584Executive Branch. I strongly value such interagency585collaboration, and I would build on relationships with586attorneys at the National Security Council, the Department of587Justice, the Department of War, and other agencies to ensure588that policymakers receive the best legal advice in support of589our national security.590    Third, I would lead the Office of the General Counsel to591work closely with this Committee to enable your oversight work592and to provide appropriate transparency about the basis for CIA593actions.594    As President Eisenhower said when laying the cornerstone of595the CIA headquarters: ``Success cannot be advertised. Failure596cannot be explained.''597    That remains true today. The CIA's activities are generally598outside of public view, and it is a testament to the patriotic599service of intelligence officers and also to the importance of600this Committee's oversight.601    At that same cornerstone ceremony, it was announced that602the words from the Gospel of John would be inscribed at the603entrance of the CIA headquarters. Those words, as anyone who604visits the CIA knows, are ``And ye shall know the truth and the605truth shall make you free.''606    If confirmed, I would support that mission to know the607truth and to protect and promote freedom.608    Finally, I want to thank my family, including my parents,609who are here. I come from a long line of Americans, from610farmers to coal miners, who have loved our country and worked611faithfully to raise families and serve their communities.612Sitting here today, I am honored with the opportunity to help613protect our country and those communities.614    I also thank my wife of over 18 years. We met in law615school, and she has had a distinguished career as a government616lawyer. I would not be here without her steadfast support and617wisdom. As the Proverb says: She is far more precious than618jewels. Our children are also here today in hopes that they619will be inspired seeing our great American Republic at work.620    Thank you again. I look forward to answering your621questions.622    [The written statement of the witness follows:]623624    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]625626    Chairman Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.627    I've been on this Committee for almost 11 years now, and628we've had a number of general counsel nominees come in front of629it, and the questions often turn into very grave, somber630concerns that the nominee will have the courage to stand up and631say no when his bosses want to violate the law. I think this632approach is wrongheaded on a couple of counts.633    First, it goes without saying that any lawyer should tell634their clients if they are prepared to take an action that is635against the law, but the first count is that in my experience636of 11 years, the much more likely scenario in which the Office637of General Counsel faces pressure is to distort their legal638judgment to provide a shield to decisionmakers who don't want639to make tough decisions.640    So rather than having a Chief of Station or a high-ranking641Director of Operations officer, even the CIA Director come to642you and press you to bless something that would be illegal, it643is more likely to try to get your office to say no, something644is out of bounds when, in fact, it is in bounds and that's just645a decision that those decisionmakers care not to make.646    So, you said in your opening statement, Mr. Simmons, that647you would give clear advice and counsel to any decisionmaker648when something is against the law.649    I assume the opposite is true, as well. If you are pressed650to say something is against the law when, in reality, it is651perfectly legal, will you give that clear opinion that in your652legal judgment the action is legal and it is something the653decisionmaker is going to have to decide for himself?654    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman.655    Yes. I think Director Ratcliffe said it well, when he was656here, that he would follow the law as far as it goes and no657further.658    And one of the key distinctions here is between law and659policy. And I think if confirmed as General Counsel, my660obligation would be to provide legal advice--what are the legal661authorizations and limits. And then that equips the662policymakers to make the important decisions they need to make663for our national security.664    Chairman Cotton. And those are decisions that they make as665policymakers that a general counsel does not make as the legal666adviser?667    Mr. Simmons. That's correct, Chairman.668    Chairman Cotton. Thank you.669    So that's the first count I think that approach is wrong670on.671    The second count is that the premise of the question672usually is that there is, you know, rogue, nefarious actors673throughout the Agency, maybe up to and including the Director674and the President himself, who are always trying to break the675law in some kind of dastardly way. In reality, clients go to676their lawyers every day in America thinking about doing677something that turns out to be a violation of the law.678    An Arkansas farmer could want to build a fence on what he679thinks is his property line. He goes to a lawyer and the lawyer680says: Actually, that's a country right-of-way. You can't build681the fence there. Or, a corporate executive may be planning to682go on Squawk Box on CNBC and say a bunch of stuff about the683stock of his company and the general counsel has to say:684Actually, sir, that would be a violation of securities law. Or,685a union chief in negotiations might be prepared to take certain686actions and the union general counsel has to say: Actually,687that would violate Federal labor law.688    And, yes, maybe even a Chief of Station or CIA Director or689the President himself might think we want to do this, or could690we take this action, and the general counsel says no, that691would not be in accordance with the law; when there is no692nefarious purpose at all, it is simply you are advising clients693who by and large are not lawyers.694    That's why our country has lawyers, is to advise laymen695about what the law says.696    In each of those cases, though, you would expect your697lawyer to understand your objectives and try to work toward698them--toward a solution that accomplishes the client's699objectives but is consistent with the law, whether you're the700Arkansas farmer or the corporate executive or the union boss or701yes, even the CIA Director.702    So, Mr. Simmons, can we count on you, whenever you're703giving your plain and unvarnished advice about what is and is704not on the right side of the law, to also work with all of your705clients at the Agency and across the Executive Branch to help706them get to yes, to achieve their objectives in a manner that707is consistent with the law?708    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman.709    Yes. Throughout my legal career, I've maintained that type710of open dialogue. I think it is important to have a711relationship of trust with a client so that they can speak712freely about what their objectives are and so that they can713receive honest and clear counsel about what the law requires.714And if confirmed, that would be my approach.715    Chairman Cotton. Thank you.716    Vice Chairman.717    Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you718know, I am going to ask you on this subject because quite719honestly, just recently Senator Kaine and I went through an720extensive process to nominate U.S. Attorneys in the721Commonwealth of Virginia, as you know, Eastern District,722Western District. They had all the appropriate political bona723fides. One was actually the Republican Speaker of the House.724And we agree with the Chairman, you've got to work within the725law. We did ask them, though, both: Will you adhere to the law726and not do something that you feel is illegal or inappropriate?727    I think we ended up picking the two right guys because they728both have been fired because they were asked to do things that729at least they felt was counter to the law.730    So, in that spirit, in the same hope, Mr. Simmons, that you731will have the same approach of honoring the law, first and732foremost--I mean, as I cited in my opening comments, the733President recently told a gathering of U.S. military leaders734they should use American cities as, quote, ``training grounds735for our military'' and that ``America is under invasion from736within, no different than a foreign enemy.''737    Mr. Simmons, you've been a law professor. You know the law.738Do you agree with the President that America is under invasion739``from within, no different than a foreign enemy''?740    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Vice Chairman. I741think, to your point about, you know, expectations, I would say742that I've spoken with Director Ratcliffe, and his expectation743for me is to provide clear and honest legal advice and to744comply with the law based on that advice.745    And throughout my career, and if confirmed to this746position, my approach would be to provide that honest----747    Vice Chairman Warner. Yeah, but Mr. Simmons, does that mean748if the President states it, regardless of what factual basis749may be underlying the statement, that it is then within the750law?751    Mr. Simmons. So, on that particular issue, I haven't752reviewed the legal authorities around that issue.753    I mean, for example, at the CIA, I know that Section 104(a)754of the National Security Act provides that the CIA shall not755have law enforcement powers. So that's the type of clear advice756that would be provided if that question arose.757    Vice Chairman Warner. In other words, if in the effort--and758again, I won't quiz you more on the fact of taking folks off of759counterterrorism, counterespionage, or cyber to put them on760immigration--but, if the President says because of this ``enemy761from within'', he wants the CIA to join in with the American762military in fighting this ``enemy from within,'' what counsel763would you give to Director Ratcliffe?764    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Vice Chairman.765    The mission of the CIA is to collect foreign intelligence,766and there are a number of limitations enshrined in the law with767respect to domestic activity.768    Vice Chairman Warner. So, you will advise the Director that769it would be illegal and wrong if the CIA was asked to help work770with the military in enforcing against the ``enemy within''?771    Simple yes or no would be fine.772    Mr. Simmons. As I said, section 104(a) provides that----773    Vice Chairman Warner. I'll take that as a yes.774    Mr. Simmons, you obviously are well informed. Do you see775any decline in the threats from China, Russia, or international776terrorists in terms of their effort to try to undermine the777United States of America?778    Mr. Simmons. Vice Chairman, I think we still face779significant threats to our national security from those areas.780    Vice Chairman Warner. So, no undermining of those; we've781not seen China or Russia pull back from cyberattacks?782    Mr. Simmons. Not to my knowledge, Vice Chairman.783    Vice Chairman Warner. We've not seen terrorists across the784Middle East--and the chairman and I agree, we have to search785those out and destroy them--they have not lessened their hatred786for America?787    Mr. Simmons. Not to my knowledge.788    Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate that.789    Again, I am not going to ask you a policy question then790about why we are taking FBI agents, between 25 and 45 percent,791off of their duties in those critical tasks and putting them on792the immigration detail, where, frankly, reports we've got back793is they feel that they are candidly wasting their time. But794listen, if you get confirmed, you're going to have a very795important job, and CIA General Counsels in the past have been796between a rock and a hard place many times. And I hope you will797adhere to this.798    I do want to make sure, again, one of the things that the799Chairman said was, to the fullest extent possible, you will800brief all Members of the Committee on intelligence activities801and covert activities rather than just the chairman and the802vice chairman?803    Mr. Simmons. Yes, Vice Chairman.804    Vice Chairman Warner. I am going to hold you to that.805    Very quickly, Mr. Metzger. You know, this Committee has806spent a lot of time looking at China and economic competition.807I know you cited a number of things around drug trafficking and808terrorism and other things. I hope you will continue to work809with us. I think the OIA has a great deal of opportunities to810really look at this economic competition with China, and I hope811you'll continue to work with us on that subject.812    Mr. Metzger. Vice Chairman, thank you for your question.813Certainly, I share your concern about China and economic814encroachment, and if confirmed, I pledge to continue working815with this Committee to that end.816    Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.817    Chairman Cotton. Senator Cornyn.818    Senator Cornyn. Congratulations to both of you and your819families on your nomination.820    Mr. Metzger, you and I haven't had a chance to work821directly together, but if Senator Rounds vouches for you,822that's good enough for me.823    Mr. Metzger. Thank you, Senator.824    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Simmons, we had a more extended825conversation which I enjoyed very much in my office. And we826talked about how lawyers in the Intelligence Community827determine what the law is and how different that is than the828typical lawyer in private practice who's got statutes,829Constitution case law, and are able to basically get a pretty830good idea of what the law is. Although lawyers are famous for831being able to argue both sides of a legal issue and not agree.832    But one statute that is in the law is the Foreign833Intelligence Surveillance Act, section 702. And you're familiar834with the importance of that particular provision and the835foreign intelligence that it allows the U.S. Government to836glean. And I believe the figure is that about 60 percent of the837President's Daily Brief is a product of that section of the838Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.839    You also know that we fairly recently reformed the law and840dealt with concerns--legitimate concerns--about abuses and841privacy concerns which we are obviously concerned with, as842well; but do you support the reauthorization of section 702 of843the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it is currently844written?845    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator, and I enjoyed meeting with846you as well.847    Yes, I do support reauthorization. I think Director848Ratcliffe said it well when he spoke here, that it is an849indispensable national security tool. I've seen at the State850Department as well, in addition to the statistic you gave about851the President's Daily Brief, that information derived from852section 702 provides critical insights for a wide range of U.S.853foreign policy and national security issues on a daily basis.854    Senator Cornyn. Well, again, in our conversation in my855office, we were sort of commiserating about, again, how856different the role of a lawyer is in the Intelligence Community857than in private practice where you do have a lot more that you858can refer to in terms of statutes and case law and the like,859but, basically, as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community you860have limited tools.861    You have the Constitution. You have the Executive Orders.862You have statutes like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance863Act. But many times there is no clear legal answer. And I864appreciate the Chairman's line of inquiry.865    Recently, I was reading a book by Dan Wang called866``Breakneck,'' who compared China and America, and he said the867problem in America is we have lawyers running the government.868In China, they are all engineers, and they know how to build869things. And lawyers are famous for saying no and creating870obstacles to getting to a solution or an outcome.871    But let me just ask you again: Do you view it as your job872to advise the policymakers on how they can achieve their873objectives legally, as opposed to just saying no, you can't do874that?875    Do you try to help them?876    Do you try to help to get to yes by saying: You can do it877in this way but not that way?878    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.879    That is a good summary of my approach. I think as you said,880the starting point is going to be the text of the Constitution881on the relevant statute or the Executive Order; but then it is882critical to understand the objective of the policymaker. And883then the question becomes what is the authorization for that884and what is the path forward that complies with the law.885    And I think it is challenging because there is no case law,886but it does take careful, thoughtful lawyering to analyze that887legal basis and provide counsel on how to proceed toward an888objective in a way that complies with the law.889    Senator Cornyn. And I told you that I was a fan of General890Hayden's book called ``Playing to the Edge,'' because I don't891want the Intelligence Community to be too risk averse or892worried about their legal exposure, for example.893    I want to be able to let them operate within the law, but894to the extent the law permits them to engage in operations that895are in the national security interests of the United States, I896want them to do it without fear that they are stepping over the897line or engaging in or exposing themselves to liability of some898kind.899    Do you agree that part of your job is going to be to define900where that line is to the extent possible so that policymakers901can operate within the law but up to where the--make sure we902are within the law, but within the maximum the law permits?903    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. I do agree with that.904    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.905    Chairman Cotton. Senator Wyden.906    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.907    Mr. Chairman, I am going to use about a minute of my time908for a brief statement and then to a unanimous consent request909and then on to questions.910    Chairman Cotton. So, you are not going to yield back four911minutes of your time to me?912    Senator Wyden. I know that it is tempting that I do that,913but I thank my colleague for his consent.914    Chairman Cotton. Fire away.915    Senator Wyden. Confirmation hearings of intelligence agency916general counsels are the only opportunity Congress and the917public have to hear the nominee's views before they go on to918make legal decisions in secret, and yet this year's919Intelligence Authorization bill would eliminate Senate advice920and consent for both the CIA and ODNI General Counsels, meaning921that this will be the last of these hearings.922    The chairman and I have talked about this. I've got a923longer statement opposing the provisions, and my unanimous924consent request, Mr. Chairman, would be to have a letter to the925Committee from 21 organizations entered into the record.926    Chairman Cotton. Without objection.927    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.928    Mr. Simmons, I want to follow up on what we talked about in929the office, and I appreciate you're coming up.930    Do you agree that there is no basis in law for designating931domestic terrorist organizations?932    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator, and I also933appreciated the opportunity to meet with you.934    As discussed, my focus at the State Department, for935example, has been on a foreign terrorist organization936designation. That's a statutory authority: 8 USC, section 1189,937which provides a decision about what is a foreign terrorist938organization, and one prong of that analysis is that it be a939foreign organization. There are a number of factors around the940analysis of whether it's a foreign organization such as, where941is the base of operations; what is the location and nationality942of members of that organization----943    Senator Wyden. My time is pretty short, and we have had944others come here and I got a clear yes answer and I thought945that's what we would do today. So again, is there a basis in946law for designating domestic terrorist organizations or is947there no basis?948    Mr. Simmons. Again, my focus, Senator, at State Department,949has been on the question of a foreign terrorist organization,950so I haven't reviewed authorities or analysis with respect to a951domestic organization.952    Senator Wyden. I just think that's unfortunate because I953left the meeting yesterday believing that you thought there was954no basis in law for designating domestic terrorist955organizations.956    This is a crucial issue, because the President has taken957the position that he can designate Antifa as a domestic958terrorist organization. I hope you'll give us a yes or no959answer at least for the record, so that we can have some sense960of where you would be going on this.961    One other question, if I might.962    Secretary Rubio has said that one of those boats the963administration blew up could have been interdicted instead.964We've been talking about these kinds of issues in this965Committee for some time.966    Is it legal to kill people who they could have captured or967arrested?968    Mr. Simmons. Senator, I understand there have been other969submissions to Congress from the administration, a war powers970report and a notice under section 1230. I also understand that971the General Counsel of the Department of War attended and972participated in a classified briefing on that issue last week973and I would refer questions about those military activities to974them.975    Senator Wyden. I would only say, yesterday I left the976meeting with the sense that you had some concrete thoughts977about policy direction, not how things would come up in978imaginary scenarios, but a policy direction. Today, I haven't979felt that way. On the basis of this, I am going to be opposing980your nomination.981    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.982    Chairman Cotton. Senator Lankford.983    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to984both of you for your service to the Nation.985    Mr. Simmons, my question for you is very straightforward.986Who's the better attorney, you or your wife?987    Mr. Simmons. My wife.988    Senator Lankford. OK. Good answer. Good answer in a public989setting when you're under oath. I appreciate that.990    For y'all, thank you for the time that you've given to the991Nation, sacrifices your families have gone through.992    Mr. Metzger, I was the practice round for Senator Rounds,993where you as a designee and I had a couple of years to be able994to serve together. I saw how hard you worked and how995professional you are. I also got to hear the love story of your996time with your bride and then be able to go through that997process. So grateful for that time with you. Let me get a998chance to be able to bounce a couple of questions off you,999though.1000    Mr. Metzger, I want to be able to drill down a little bit1001more. Oklahoma made the decision several years ago, which I1002vehemently disagreed with, but we vote in my State like we do1003around the country to allow medical marijuana use in my State1004with a very loose law. It was the belief of some that then we1005wouldn't have to deal with illegal marijuana in the State, that1006it would all be legalized.1007    What has happened has been an influx of thousands of1008Chinese operations coming to our State. The Oklahoma Bureau of1009Narcotics has identified what they believe is 2,000 illegal1010Chinese marijuana growers. Human trafficking has come into the1011State, all sorts of illegal activity in the distribution of1012drugs across the country coming from my own home State.1013    Now, a lot of that's going to be based on tracking dollars,1014tracking the movement of people that have come across our1015border illegally that was allowed under the Biden1016administration. That has been a very difficult issue. It is one1017of the many issues that the Treasury has to identify on how we1018are moving fentanyl, other drugs, and drug operations into our1019country.1020    How do you plan to be able to take that on?1021    Mr. Metzger. Senator, first of all, thank you for your very1022kind words and for your question.1023    Secondly, I share your concern with regard to Chinese1024economic encroachment, be it through fentanyl precursor1025trafficking to Mexico or to the narco-terrorist cartels there1026or in your home State of Oklahoma with regard to marijuana grow1027and distribution.1028    As I said in my opening statement, if confirmed, I plan to1029scour the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and encourage the1030team there to pursue all of the Chinese economic misgivings1031with regard to fentanyl drug use and any money laundering.1032    As I understand it, in Treasury there is a fantastic team1033in FinCen and the AML anti-money laundering team. And as1034potential customers, were I to be confirmed, I look forward to1035keeping them apprised of relevant and recent financial1036intelligence.1037    Senator Lankford. So, you have a unique role in the CFIUS1038process to be able to examine, you know, operations that are1039trying to be able to move and purchase land, purchase1040businesses, all those. That's a powerful role to be able to be1041engaged in to help identify where there is potential long-term1042threats. How do you see that role and what would you have1043responsibility for?1044    Mr. Metzger. Senator, thank you for your question. I think1045you're right, the CFIUS process and the Committee itself is one1046of the tantamount responsibilities of the Treasury in this1047modern era.1048    As I understand, the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence1049and Analysis is tasked with ensuring that the Secretary, the1050President, and the other Cabinet-level officials on the1051Committee receive timely and accurate information with regard1052to foreign investment in the United States and are able to make1053a determination or make reference to the President for his1054determination.1055    Senator Lankford. That would be helpful. Mr. Metzger, one1056last question on this.1057    Mr. Simmons, you are not getting off easy with me. We had a1058great conversation in the office, and I appreciate your input1059on that.1060    Mr. Metzger, during the Biden administration, Iran was1061considered the largest State sponsor of terrorism. We had1062sanctions on their oil sales, but public reports say in the1063last year Iran has still sold $43 billion of oil, much of it to1064China.1065    How do we wrap our arms around some of the sanctions1066violations that are happening with the largest State sponsor of1067terrorism in the world?1068    Mr. Metzger. Senator, thank you for your question. I share1069your concern with regard to Iran, as you know.1070    I think during the first Trump administration, the1071President demonstrated deft and sound leadership with regard to1072containing Iran, with regard to countering Iran and their1073illicit financial activities, and most importantly with regard1074to countering their global terror network.1075    I think at the end of the day, if confirmed to serve as1076Assistant Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis,1077it will be incumbent upon me to follow the money to counter1078illicit money laundering and to ensure that Iran isn't able to1079evade U.S. sanctions designations.1080    Senator Lankford. Thank you both.1081    Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet.1082    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1083    Thank you both for your willingness to serve.1084    Mr. Simmons, the White House recently informed Congress1085that President Trump has declared us to be at ``war'' with1086unspecified drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere citing new1087anti-cartel authorities. President Trump also directed air1088strikes against boats in the Caribbean, allegedly carrying drug1089traffickers and narcotics.1090    Mr. Simmons, in your capacity as Principal Deputy Legal1091Adviser to Secretary Rubio, did you play any role in the1092deliberations surrounding these anti-cartel authorities?1093    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator.1094    Senator Bennet. Thank you for being here.1095    Mr. Simmons. I've advised on a wide range of national1096security matters while at the State Department.1097    Senator Bennet. Did you advise on the anti-cartel1098authorities that the administration has used?1099    Well, let me ask you--that the administration has used in1100part to justify the actions that have been taken against those1101cartels?1102    Mr. Simmons. Thanks, Senator. I am not in a position to1103discuss the specifics of any internal operations.1104    Senator Bennet. I'm not asking you the specifics other than1105to ask you if you were involved in those discussions.1106    Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position to1107discuss the specifics of internal deliberations.1108    Senator Bennet. I don't know why you can't tell this1109Committee the answer to that question.1110    Mr. Simmons. I appreciate that, Senator, and I hope you'll1111understand the importance of leadership receiving confidential1112advice.1113    Senator Bennet. What is your understanding in front of this1114Committee of the limits on the President's authority to use1115military force to combat criminal activity like drug1116trafficking?1117    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.1118    I mentioned previously the notice under Section 1230 which1119stated that it was an exercise of the President's Article II1120authority in self-defense and defense of others against ongoing1121attacks by designated terrorist----1122    Senator Bennet. Is that the advice that you gave to the1123Secretary of State on this subject?1124    Mr. Simmons. Senator, these were military strikes conducted1125by the Department of War, and as I said, the general counsel of1126that department----1127    Senator Bennet. Is it correct that you didn't have any1128discussion about this at the State Department?1129    Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position1130to--I don't know all of the discussions that may or may not1131have taken place at the State Department.1132    Senator Bennet. Is it correct that you did not participate1133in any discussions about this while you were at the State1134Department?1135    Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position to1136discuss any legal advice that I may or may not have provided.1137    Senator Bennet. Do you agree that the CIA doesn't have any1138authority to conduct operations within U.S. borders to counter1139drug cartels?1140    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.1141    I agree that there are significant limitations enshrined in1142the law with respect to any domestic activities by the CIA.1143    Senator Bennet. Do you agree that designating or labeling1144an organization as a quote, end quote, ``terrorist1145organization'' is not in itself a sufficient basis to justify1146the use of force against that organization?1147    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator.1148    I mentioned previously the designation, the FTO designation1149as a foreign terrorist organization. And that assessment in1150addition to the point I discussed about requiring a foreign1151organization, requires that there be terrorist activity and1152threats against the United States. That FTO designation has a1153separate legal purpose in the sense that it relates to1154sanctions when there is material support. So, there is--it's a1155separate legal category than a lawful use of force. But that--1156that assessment includes one about threats to United States1157national security.1158    Senator Bennet. Do you believe that designating or labeling1159an organization as a terrorist organization is itself a1160sufficient basis to justify the use of force against that1161organization; is that your reading of the law?1162    Mr. Simmons. My reading specifically on the foreign1163terrorist organization, FTO designation, does not legally have1164a decisive impact either way on the lawful use of force.1165    Senator Bennet. Do you agree, Mr. Simmons, that anti-cartel1166authorities provide no basis for the administration to justify1167any actions against its domestic political opponents whom1168various administration officials have also designated as1169terrorists?1170    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator. I am not1171familiar with all of the law around anti-cartel activities. As1172I said, if the focus is on domestic----1173    Senator Bennet. I am not asking you--This is not a hard1174question. This is an easy question. So let me ask again.1175    Do you agree that these so-called anti-cartel authorities1176provide no basis for the administration to justify any actions1177against its domestic political opponents whom various1178administration officials have also designated as terrorists?1179    I am asking you for your view as a lawyer.1180    Mr. Simmons. I am not sure which anti-cartel authorities1181you are referring to.1182    Senator Bennet. For the ones that you and I have been1183talking about for the last five minutes, Mr. Simmons.1184    Mr. Simmons. Is there a specific statutory provision you1185want to know?1186    Senator Bennet. I've given you the specific language that1187the administration has relied on to take the actions that it's1188taken, and now I am asking you whether or not the1189administration could use that----1190    I hear you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.1191    --could use that authority to turn it against its domestic1192political opponents, some of whom it called terrorists. And I1193find it very hard to believe that anybody with a law degree,1194much less as somebody with your excellent preparation, can't1195answer that question directly. And the answer is no. I can't1196believe that's not your answer, Mr. Simmons.1197    Mr. Simmons. Well, I think, as I said, that FTO designation1198requirement includes as a factor that there be a foreign1199organization.1200    Senator Bennet. I'll take that as a no.1201    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1202    Chairman Cotton. Senator Rounds.1203    Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1204    Mr. Simmons, first of all, let me just kind of rephrase a1205little bit here.1206    What's your understanding of the general counsel's role in1207providing timely and relevant reporting to congressional1208oversight committees? You are in front of an oversight1209committee right now.1210    Share your thoughts with me. What do you consider to be1211timely in terms of your role in making sure that it gets done?1212    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. And, I appreciated the1213opportunity to meet with you.1214    Sections 502 and 503 of the National Security Act make1215clear that the CIA would keep the intelligence committees fully1216and currently informed of intelligence activities and with due1217regard for protection of classified information.1218    There is also a separate provision, section 510, that1219provides that the general counsels of each element of the1220Intelligence Community--so, including the General Counsel of1221the CIA--would notify the committee of any significant legal1222interpretation of the Constitution or Federal law affecting1223intelligence activities.1224    So, in addition to the general obligation to keep this1225Committee fully and currently informed, and I think the General1226Counsel's responsibility would be to advise on--you know, apply1227that statutory provision to any particular facts and1228circumstances, and then there is a separate provision1229specifically on significant legal interpretations.1230    Senator Rounds. In our office, we talked a little bit about1231some of the advanced technology that is deployed or will be1232deployed, and not only by us but by our adversaries as well,1233and artificial intelligence and the use of the quantum--for1234lack of a better term, the quantum environment is going to be a1235critical part of that advancement, and it is happening a lot1236faster than people realize.1237    How do you plan to augment the efforts that are ongoing,1238and how do you see your role in the development or use of this1239particular advancement in technology?1240    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.1241    I agree that these emerging technologies are critically1242important, and I do think that it is critical to have good1243legal analysis around these emerging technologies because, as1244this Committee surely knows, the law sometimes struggles to1245keep up with the technology. These advances are happening so1246rapidly. So, it's a question of reviewing the law that exists1247with an innovative and careful analysis, applying it to a new1248technology.1249    That's something I've done in the private sector. I was1250involved in a litigation matter related to the largest bitcoin1251mining facility in North America. These are huge data centers.1252    They are important to our national security, important to1253our strategic advantages.1254    And if confirmed as general counsel, it would be a priority1255of mine to provide that innovative, careful legal analysis of1256existing statutory and legal frameworks to emerging1257technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing,1258and so on.1259    Senator Rounds. Thank you.1260    Mr. Metzger, I don't think they've hazed you much yet1261today, and I suspect that you're probably not going to get much1262hazing at all.1263    I think your reputation on this committee is such that,1264while we hate to lose you from the committee, we most certainly1265think that you're moving to a spot in which you can be a real1266asset to the Department of the Treasury.1267    Let me speak to you. Can you speak a little bit about how1268your time on this Committee will support the role of which1269you've been nominated?1270    Mr. Metzger. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for your1271question.1272    Over the last four years, I've had a front row seat to the1273absolutely critical nature of Congressional oversight that1274knows no bounds with regard to the Intelligence Community.1275    If confirmed, I look forward to continuing robust1276cooperation with this Committee, with its Members, and with its1277professional staff, whom I am very, very proud to call peers1278and colleagues.1279    Senator Rounds. Thank you.1280    I am going to slide back to Mr. Simmons for just a second.1281I think with regard to artificial intelligence and what we are1282going to be seeing happening, I think the message that we would1283like to share with you is that, if something was wrong before--1284not legal before--the use of artificial intelligence in that1285action does not make it right; or if something was right before1286and the use of artificial intelligence is applied to speed up a1287process, it does not make it wrong. Would that be a fair way to1288begin the discussion?1289    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. I think that's a good1290example of the type of innovative application of the law as it1291exists in an emerging technology.1292    Senator Rounds. Thank you.1293    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1294    Chairman Cotton. Senator King.1295    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1296    Mr. Simmons, I am a little confused. You've mentioned1297several times a department that doesn't exist in our1298government. What's the name of the department that Mr. Hegseth1299is the secretary of?1300    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. It is, by statute, the1301Department of Defense. And----1302    Senator King. Why did you call it the Department of War?1303That's not the name. Its name is Department of Defense1304according to 10 USC 111(a) in the National Security Amendments1305of 1949. Why are you making something up?1306    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. That sounds like an astute1307citation by a UVA law grad. I would say that there is an1308Executive Order that----1309    Senator King. Executive Orders aren't law, Mr. Simmons. The1310statutes of the United States are laws. If that name's going to1311be changed, it should be changed here. But let me move on.1312    There is a rumor circulating that people applying for1313promotions or assignments or admission to employment at the CIA1314are being asked to affirm the assertion that Donald Trump won1315the election in 2020.1316    Were you asked that question, and do you know of anybody1317else that's being asked that question?1318    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.1319    I am not aware of that question being asked.1320    I think I agree with what Director Ratcliffe said when he1321was here which is that it is critical for our intelligence to1322be apolitical so that our policymakers are best informed about1323national----1324    Senator King. So, it's untrue that that's become a litmus1325test in the CIA?1326    Mr. Simmons. I am certainly not aware of that, Senator.1327    Senator King. Thank you. I appreciate that.1328    As Secretary Rubio revoked the status of several lawful1329permanent residents when you were the Acting General Counsel1330based on their exercise of the First Amendment, the Court said1331this was a misuse of the power of their respective offices to1332target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation, primarily1333on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.1334    Were you involved in the upcoming support for that decision1335by Secretary Rubio?1336    Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. As I said before, I am not1337in a position to discuss specific----1338    Senator King. I don't buy that, Mr. Simmons. I know about1339executive privilege and about legal privilege. That goes to the1340content. You won't even tell us if you were in the room? I1341don't think that's privileged.1342    I am asking you, did you provide advice on this subject to1343Secretary Rubio? There is no privilege for that statement.1344    Mr. Simmons. There have been many matters in which the1345statutory authority with respect to lawful permanent residence1346has arisen. A number of them are in litigation now, and those1347cases are being litigated in the courts.1348    Senator King. It's not your----1349    You're doing a really good job today of not answering1350questions.1351    The question is really simple. Were you involved in1352providing advice to the Secretary on the issue of revocation of1353lawful permanent residence on the basis of their free speech1354assertions? A simple yes or no question: Were you involved, did1355you provide advice?1356    Mr. Simmons. Senator, sitting here today, I do not recall1357specifically whether I advised on that exact issue.1358    Senator King. OK. Well, I guess I have to take that.1359    Another straightforward yes or no question: Is it legal for1360the CIA to engage in activities in the continental United1361States?1362    Mr. Simmons. Thank you for your question, Senator. The1363definition of covert action in section 503 refers to activities1364abroad. And I think there are other----1365    Senator King. So, the answer to my question is, it is not1366legal, right?1367    Mr. Simmons. I----1368    Senator King. I asked you a question. Is it legal for the1369CIA to conduct activities within the United States, yes or no?1370    Mr. Simmons. I think there are, you know, incidental or1371ancillary activities that happen in the United States. Whether1372covert action is----1373    Senator King. People go to work at Langley. I get that. But1374I don't understand your--you've even read the law that said1375it's the law is the CIA can only operate abroad. That's the1376assumption of this Committee for as long as I've been on it.1377Can't you just say that?1378    Mr. Simmons. Senator, I agree there are significant1379limitations on the CIA in the law. There are no police,1380subpoena, or law enforcement powers. There is no internal1381security function. There are----1382    Senator King. Covert action, no, right? Intelligence1383collection, no, correct?1384    Mr. Simmons. The mission of the CIA is foreign1385intelligence.1386    Senator King. That's--that's good. Thank you.1387    The actions in the Caribbean, you mentioned that we had a1388briefing, that Congress had been briefed. They did send a1389notice. But I was in a hearing on the Armed Services Committee1390earlier this week with the General Counsel of the Defense1391Department, and they won't give us the opinion that underlies1392the--provides a legal basis.1393    They say that it is classified, or it is internal1394deliberations or something. The Congress has not seen the1395Office of Legal Counsel opinion as to the legality of those1396strikes, and I think it is important to emphasize that Congress1397has not been given that.1398    As a lawyer, as a professor of law, doesn't it give you1399some pause that under this situation the President is1400designating an organization as a terrorist organization and1401then taking lethal action? The President is the prosecutor, the1402judge, the jury, and the executioner.1403    Doesn't that bother you as a student of the law?1404    Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator. First of1405all, I haven't reviewed all the classified information around1406this, so I don't know all the facts and circumstances. I would1407say that Article II of the Constitution provides that the1408President is the Commander in Chief and there are authorities1409with respect to self-defense.1410    Senator King. What does the Constitution say about who1411declares war?1412    Mr. Simmons. I think Senator Wyden raised that. Article I1413provides that Congress shall have the power to declare war.1414    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1415    Chairman Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony1416today. As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention to hold a1417committee vote on these nominations as soon as possible.1418Therefore, for planning purposes, any Member who wishes to1419submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please1420do so by close of business tomorrow, October 9.1421    I trust that we can count on prompt answers from our two1422nominees to allow for further consideration.1423    Vice Chairman.1424    Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate both witnesses'1425testimonies.1426    I am not going to ask you again, but I am going to expect1427that there is this adherence to the law. I hate to have to ask1428that question, but I've seen two, I think, distinguished1429individuals who stuck by that and lost their jobs as U.S.1430Attorneys.1431    I hope you at least review those circumstances and make1432those same kinds of commitments.1433    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1434    Chairman Cotton. Thank you, everyone, for your attendance1435today.1436    The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon the hearing was1437adjourned at 4:31 p.m.)14381439[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14401441                               [all]