    [Senate Hearing 119-264]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-264

                                 OPEN HEARING:
                       NOMINATIONS OF PETER METZGER TO BE
                    ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND
                     ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                       TREASURY AND JOSHUA SIMMONS TO BE
                         GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CENTRAL
                              INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

                                     OF THE

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 8, 2025
                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-542                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

               (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.)

                         TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman
                    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman

    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  MARK KELLY, Arizona
    TED BUDD, North Carolina
                      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ex Officio
                    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
                    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ex Officio
                      JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio

                                  ----------

                           Ryan Tully, Staff Director
                      William Wu, Minority Staff Director
                         Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                OCTOBER 8, 2025

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas...........................     1
    Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia.......................     3
    Mike Rounds, U.S. Senator from South Dakota......................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Peter Metzger, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence
      and Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury..................     7
        Prepared Statement...........................................     9
    Joshua Simmons, Nominee to be General Counsel of the Central
      Intelligence Agency............................................    11
        Prepared Statement...........................................    13

                             SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

    Nomination Material for Peter Metzger
        Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    31
        Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    51
        Post-Hearing Questions.......................................    63
    Nomination Material for Joshua Simmons
        Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........    67
        Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.............................    83
        Post-Hearing Questions.......................................   119
    Coalition Letter Submitted by Senator Wyden......................   128

     OPEN HEARING: NOMINATIONS OF PETER METZGER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
     FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
     AND JOSHUA SIMMONS TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
                                     AGENCY

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                              Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m., in
    Room SD-G50, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom
    Cotton, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cotton (presiding), Warner, Risch,
    Cornyn, Lankford, Rounds, Young, Budd, Wyden, Heinrich, King,
    Bennet, Ossoff, and Kelly.

          OPENING STATEMENT BY HON. TOM COTTON, A U.S. SENATOR
                            FROM ARKANSAS

        Chairman Cotton. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
    order. I'd like to welcome you all to today's hearing to
    consider the nominations of Mr. Peter Metzger, to be the
    Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the
    Department of Treasury, and Mr. Josh Simmons, to be General
    Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
        I would like to remind all of those in attendance that
    while you are welcome to observe today's hearing, Vice Chairman
    Warner and I agree that we will not allow disruptions by the
    audience. Audience members may not verbally or physically
    distract from the hearing, including by shouting, standing,
    raising signs, or making gestures that block the view of other
    members of the audience. Put simply, we came here to hear from
    Mr. Metzger and Mr. Simmons, not from you. If I have to have
    anyone removed from this hearing, I will take further action to
    have you barred from the committee's future proceedings, coming
    within a country mile of the committee's rooms and spaces in
    the Capitol, and barring you from the Capitol. Our goal is to
    conduct this hearing--our goal in conducting this hearing is to
    enable the committee to begin consideration of the nominee's
    qualifications.
        (Disruption in the gallery.)
        Chairman Cotton. The only genocide that has happened since
    October 7th is the genocide that Hamas perpetrated against the
    Jewish people.
        Is there anyone else who would like to get it off their
    chest now to save us time?
        All right. Each nominee here has provided substantive
    written responses to dozens of questions presented by the
    committee. Today, of course, Members will be able to ask
    additional questions and hear from the nominees.
        Let me first begin by thanking both nominees for their
    willingness to once again answer the call to public service.
    I'd also like to recognize and thank their families and loved
    ones, many of whom are sitting right behind them, for offering
    their encouragement and support.
        Throughout their careers, both nominees before the
    committee have given their time and talents to our Nation. Many
    of those on this Committee have had the pleasure to work with
    Mr. Metzger, who currently serves as a professional staff
    member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. As a
    designee to Senator Rounds, Mr. Metzger has spent his time with
    this Committee covering issue areas including the CIA, FBI,
    covert action, counterintelligence, the Middle East and Africa.
        Mr. Metzger, as Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and
    Analysis at the Treasury, you will be expected to support the
    U.S. Government with timely intelligence on economic security
    concerns, financial intelligence matters, and the
    implementation of economic statecraft tools. This is a critical
    position, especially as Communist China wages an economic and
    technical war to dominate the emerging technologies and works
    to displace the United States as the predominant economic
    military power in the world.
        Next, we have Mr. Simmons, who is currently the Principal
    Deputy Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. During
    his time at the State Department, Mr. Simmons has worked on
    foreign policy and national security matters, including
    intelligence sharing, covert action, and the law of armed
    conflict. Mr. Simmons also previously spent time in private law
    practice where he handled international arbitration disputes
    pertaining to national security.
        Mr. Simmons, as CIA general counsel, you will be expected
    to provide timely and efficient legal guidance in support of
    ongoing worldwide intelligence operations. The work of the
    General Counsel's office touches every aspect of the Agency's
    business, including the procurement of resources, handling of
    personnel matters, facilitating lawful intelligence collection,
    and conducting Presidentially authorized covert action.
        This Committee is committed to ensuring our intelligence
    agencies and officers return to the core mission of collecting
    clandestine foreign intelligence. After years of misplaced
    priorities, allowed bureaucratic bloat, risk aversion and
    political judgment masquerading as legal advice to creep into
    America's intelligence apparatus, it is time to right the ship.
    With this in mind, I look forward to hearing from our nominees
    on how they plan to approach their respective roles.
        Again, thank you both for being here and once again
    answering the call to public service.
        I now recognize our distinguished vice chairman for any
    opening remarks.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR
                             FROM VIRGINIA

        Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
    first, let me congratulate both witnesses on your nominations.
    While your roles may not attract the same public attention as
    the DNI or the CIA Director, your responsibilities are no less
    vital to our national security. You'll play a key role in
    ensuring that our intelligence agencies operate both lawfully
    and effectively. And Peter, as you particularly know, this
    Committee doesn't do a lot of things in public hearings.
        And I do want to share some of my concerns as we go into
    these unprecedented times, because, to me, it feels like there
    are new precedents being set virtually every day. Recently, the
    Secretary of Defense pulled hundreds of military officers from
    their duties to lecture them on grooming standards and urged
    them to ignore ``stupid'' rules of engagement, even as Europe
    is engaged in a land war with Russia and China threatens
    Taiwan.
        The President then went further, encouraging the use of
    American cities as ``training grounds'' for the military while
    deploying armed soldiers to occupy cities and arrest American
    citizens--deployments that courts, including judges he
    appointed, have ruled illegal. To their credit, those officers
    at Quantico responded with the professionalism and nonpartisan
    discipline we expect from our men and women in uniform. But the
    sheer lack of respect shown by President Trump and Secretary
    Hegseth for our military and for the rule of law should concern
    all of us.
        But this is not just a matter of respect. I believe the
    President and some in his administration are continuing to take
    actions that make America less safe. Early in his term the
    President boasted about the capture of the ISIS terrorist
    responsible for the Kabul bombing that killed 13 American
    servicemembers, but he did not highlight how he had actually
    fired the head of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division
    responsible for that very investigation.
        That was not an isolated decision. He also fired the head
    of the FBI branch that takes down criminal organizations and
    drug traffickers, as well as leaders in the Bureau's
    Intelligence and Cyber Divisions, even as--both of you
    gentlemen know--our adversaries are working around-the-clock to
    spy on Americans and penetrate our critical infrastructure
    through ventures like Salt Typhoon. He has dismissed the heads
    of major field offices from Washington and Miami, again one of
    the biggest drug enforcement hubs in our country. Together with
    the FBI Director, he has forced out thousands of experienced
    agents for reasons that appear more political than prescient,
    including reports from FBI agents who refused to lie about the
    2020 election, and frankly for reasons that appear more petty
    than performance-based--like being friends with public critics
    of the President.
        According to court filings, even Director Patel has
    recently acknowledged that these actions may be illegal, but
    said that his position depended on removing those agents.
        And this is the really shocking news, and I ask all my
    colleagues to listen. In recent months, nearly a quarter of the
    FBI agents who handle counterterrorism, cyber, espionage and
    other criminal cases, have been assigned to immigration cases.
    In some field offices, that number goes up to 45 percent,
    firing or transferring agents who investigate terrorists, drug
    traffickers, and sexual predators, and pulling back cyber
    expertise targeting Chinese and Russian hackers does not make
    America feel safe.
        Sadly, I feel like, again--and I've talked to my colleagues
    about this. This is only a fraction of the damage done to our
    national security in the last nine months. Across the
    Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, the Treasury,
    and Justice, career experts with decades of service, many in
    combat zones, are being pushed out not for poor performance,
    but for refusing to put loyalty to political narratives above
    their oath to the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the
    infrastructure that the first Trump administration set up in
    2018, in a really good move, to ensure safe and secure
    elections--and it was remarkable what they did in 2018, going
    after Russian troll farms, Chinese threats to local candidates,
    and Iranian attempts to stoke violence--all of that operation
    has been dismantled.
        And just this week it was reported in the Wall Street
    Journal that DHS disbanded a Federal team that once pursued
    child traffickers and a task force that once focused on
    stemming the flow of fentanyl. I just don't understand how
    that's making America safer.
        Now, Mr. Simmons and Mr. Metzger, you may wonder what this
    has to do with you and the jobs that you are being nominated
    for, and you both bring significant relevant experience to
    these nominations. Mr. Simmons, as a former UVA law professor
    and principal legal adviser at the State Department; and Mr.
    Metzger, as we all know, he was a former senior staffer on this
    Committee. You've both served in roles where speaking truth to
    power and upholding the law are core responsibilities. If
    confirmed to these new roles, you will be called upon to
    demonstrate that same commitment to speaking truth to power and
    to upholding the rule of law, even when doing so is politically
    inconvenient. And I believe this moment is not about partisan
    politics. It is about whether America will maintain an
    Intelligence Community that can operate independently and
    provide unvarnished assessments of challenges we face. You know
    better than most that our adversaries are not letting up. Day
    after day, we see intelligence about how they are becoming more
    creative, more aggressive, and more coordinated in their
    efforts to weaken our country.
        I worry that the holes the administration is creating in
    our national security enterprise leaves Americans dangerously
    vulnerable. Mr. Metzger and Mr. Simmons, if you are confirmed,
    the men and women you will lead and the American people will
    expect nothing less than your absolute devotion to be truth.
    Today, I look forward to hearing how each of you intends to
    uphold that solemn responsibility.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Chairman Cotton. I would now like to recognize Senator
    Rounds for a few words of support of Mr. Metzger, who allegedly
    performed outstanding work for him.

         STATEMENT OF HON. M. MICHAEL ROUNDS, A U.S. SENATOR
                           FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will dispense
    with the hazing to begin with here.
        Today, I do have the unique privilege of saying a few words
    about my former designated staff member on the committee, Mr.
    Peter Metzger.
        Serving four years on this professional staff, Peter
    managed some of our Nation's most sensitive and complex
    intelligence matters with extraordinary expertise and
    attention. During his tenure, he covered covert action, the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, counter-intelligence, the
    Middle East, and other specialized intelligence portfolios,
    demonstrating an impressive breadth of knowledge and commitment
    to serve wherever called.
        He conducted critical intelligence oversight in over 35
    countries during his tenure, monitoring key intelligence
    outposts across the globe, and helped to author imperative
    legislation that bolstered the Intelligence Community and made
    our country safer.
        I had the privilege to get to know Peter personally during
    this time, and can attest to his tremendous professionalism,
    devotion to mission and high character. He was a great support
    and resource to me in carrying out my responsibilities as a
    Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I want to
    express my gratitude for that.
        As such, it is no wonder that President Trump had the
    confidence in him to nominate Peter for Assistant Secretary of
    the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. This nomination is
    the next step in a life's work of service to our Nation, first
    as an attorney, then as a United States Marine Corps officer,
    and most recently, as a policy adviser and national security
    expert in the highest levels of the United States Government.
        I highlight his time in the White House on the National
    Security Council staff as a special assistant to the President
    where, as then former National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien
    said: Peter's expertise proved vital to the President. I
    certainly expect this to hold true in his next role.
        I have no doubt that if confirmed, Peter will serve our
    country admirably in this post. And in that event, we will look
    forward to seeing you back here often.
        I would also like to note that it has been an exciting time
    in the Metzger family lately. Peter and his wife Tippi welcomed
    their son into the family in August; and not 2 weeks later, the
    President nominated him for assistant secretary. Now, I know
    one of those things is a whole lot more important than the
    other; but nonetheless, I believe it is a great testament to
    your growing family's devotion to service. So, congratulations,
    Peter and Tippi.
        And Tippi, we want to thank you for your support during his
    nomination process, knowing that this is indeed a family
    endeavor.
        The position to which Mr. Metzger has been nominated is
    responsible for the analysis and dissemination of financial
    intelligence across the government. Through Peter's legal
    background, service in uniform, service in the Intelligence
    Community, time in the White House, and time on this Committee,
    I believe we are hard pressed to find anyone more suited to the
    task.
        If confirmed, Members of this Committee should find great
    comfort in having a public servant of this caliber in this
    role.
        In closing, I want to offer my strongest endorsement of Mr.
    Metzger to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
    Intelligence and Analysis. Owing to Peter's demonstrated
    commitment to service, his wealth of national security
    expertise and his unimpeachable character, I have the utmost
    confidence that if confirmed he will bring great credit to the
    Department and the Executive branch.
        Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        I am shocked and disappointed the one-month-old Metzger boy
    isn't here with us; but years from now when you reflect on it,
    I am sure the Simmons children will assure him that he didn't
    miss anything, because it was very boring. [Laughter.]
        Gentlemen, before we move on to your opening statements, we
    have five customary questions we ask of all witnesses who
    appear before the committee, so if we could get just a simple
    yes or no answer for the record. If you want the keys to the
    test, the correct answer is yes. If it is no, it will require
    an immediate and extended explanation.
        One, do you agree to appear before the committee here or in
    other venues when invited?
        Mr. Metzger. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Two, If confirmed, do you agree to send
    officials from your office to appear before the committee and
    designated staff when invited?
        Mr. Metzger. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Three, do you agree to provide documents
    or any other materials requested by the committee in order for
    it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?
        Mr. Metzger. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Four, will you ensure that your office and
    your staff provide such material to the committee when
    requested?
        Mr. Metzger. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. And five, do you agree to inform and fully
    brief to the full extent possible all Members of this Committee
    of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only
    the chairman and vice chairman?
        Mr. Metzger. Yes.
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you both very much. After our
    hearing today, for the benefit of Members, it is my intention
    to move quickly to convene a committee business meeting to vote
    on the nominations and report them to the Senate for prompt
    floor consideration.
        We will now proceed with our nominees' opening statements,
    after which I'll recognize Members by seniority at the gavel
    for five minutes each.
        Mr. Metzger, we will start with you and then go to Mr.
    Simmons.

        STATEMENT OF PETER METZGER, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION OF
       ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND
                                ANALYSIS

        Mr. Metzger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and Members of this
    Committee: It is a tremendous honor to appear before you today
    as you consider my nomination to serve as Assistant Secretary
    of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis.
        I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for
    all of the blessings of this life, including this opportunity
    today; my wife Tippi, who is here today, and our newborn son
    for their endless love and support; President Trump, for this
    opportunity to again serve our country; and Secretary Bessent,
    for his confidence in me. I would also like to thank my family,
    including my mother and father, and the mentors, former
    colleagues, and close friends present at this hearing and
    watching from afar who have helped shape my career and
    professional development in the practice of law, in the United
    States Marine Corps, in U.S. Special Operations Command, in the
    Intelligence Community, in multiple Executive branch national
    security roles, and certainly here on the staff of this august
    committee.
        Service to our country runs in my family. I am the fourth
    U.S. Marine Officer in my family and the second to have served
    in the Intelligence Community. It has been a high honor not
    only to continue the tradition, but also uniquely gratifying to
    have spent nearly two decades at the forefront of our country's
    national security. I should point out, as well, that my wife
    Tippi has similarly dedicated her own career to public service
    and national security. I am immeasurably proud of the
    sacrifices she has made on behalf of our country. She inspires
    me daily with her devotion both to our family and to her own
    professional duties.
        Am I to be confirmed, it would be a unique privilege to
    lead one of the 18 components of the U.S. Intelligence
    Community. Understanding firsthand the hard and often anonymous
    nature of intelligence work, it would be an honor to again call
    the men and women of the Intelligence Community colleagues,
    especially in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
        My career to date has afforded me incredible service
    opportunities, often granting unfettered access to the
    collection and utilization of intelligence to inform national
    security policy decisions. During President Trump's first term,
    I had the opportunity to serve in the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense directing Syria policy, and later, on the staff of
    the National Security Council at the White House. On the NSC
    staff, I led the President's policies on the Levant and later,
    as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security
    Affairs, I helped lead the development of the President's
    Middle East and North Africa policy.
        Since 2021, I have had the privilege to serve on the
    professional staff of this Committee where my oversight
    portfolio responsibilities have included, among others, covert
    action, the Middle East, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
    counterintelligence, and other specific specialized
    intelligence programs.
        Treasury's critical role in both regulating domestic
    financial markets and leveraging the might of the U.S.
    financial system toward U.S. foreign policy goals is
    formidable. Yet still, my experience, having executed dozens of
    tailored sanctions designations in the White House from
    different authorities, including Executive Orders and
    congressionally drafted legislation, provided me the
    opportunity to witness the exceptional power of the U.S.
    financial system in achieving statecraft on behalf of the
    United States. The power of the U.S. financial system is one of
    the greatest tools of the U.S. national security apparatus.
    Treasury's intelligence collection and analysis are critical to
    this instrument of national power and to the President's
    ability to wield as much.
        If confirmed, I would bring to bear my own intelligence and
    policy experience while leveraging an exemplary existing team
    within OIA. Likewise, if confirmed, I would prioritize
    effective task organization of the OIA team toward the
    President and the Secretary's objectives; ensure focused
    analysis of narco-terrorist and legacy terror organizations;
    partner with IC colleagues to enhance collection on illicit
    financial activities of the adversarial nation state actors
    including Iran, China, Russia and North Korea; and finally, I
    would assess the counterintelligence posture of OIA personnel
    and Treasury infrastructure to enhance defenses against new and
    emerging threats.
        As an alumnus of this Committee's staff, I pledge my
    continued commitment to robust Congressional intelligence
    oversight and cooperation therewith.
        Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The written statement of the witness follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Simmons.

    STATEMENT OF JOSHUA SIMMONS, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR
                    THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman
    Warner, and distinguished Members of the Committee, for the
    opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee to be
    General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
        I am grateful to President Trump, Director Ratcliffe, and
    Deputy Director Ellis for their trust and confidence in me. I
    also appreciate the opportunity I have had to meet with several
    of you before this hearing to discuss a number of important
    issues.
        I want to thank my colleagues at the State Department.
    Secretary Rubio and other leaders at State have been advancing
    important U.S. interests in foreign policy and national
    security. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with
    them.
        I understand that, if confirmed, I would not be the first
    attorney to have served in the Office of the Legal Adviser at
    the State Department and then as General Counsel of the CIA. I
    think there are good reasons for this. The offices have similar
    sizes, similarly talented lawyers, and similar missions
    advising national security matters. Both offices also confront
    legal issues of great complexity and, often, urgency. These
    issues require judgment and wisdom that cannot be learned from
    a textbook, and I am grateful to my colleagues in the Office of
    the Legal Adviser for sharing years of on-the-ground
    experience.
        If confirmed as General Counsel, I would use this
    experience to help the CIA navigate the many challenges our
    country faces. Director Ratcliffe has spoken to you about these
    challenges. They include the Chinese Communist Party,
    transnational drug-trafficking cartels, and the Russia-Ukraine
    war. At the same time, we are seeing rapidly emerging
    technologies from artificial intelligence to quantum computing
    that could define the future of our national security.
        The General Counsel of the CIA is responsible for
    supporting the CIA's mission in facing these challenges, with
    fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. This means
    protecting not only American national security, but also
    Americans' civil liberties. If confirmed, I would seek to
    advance these interests in three primary ways.
        First, I would provide objective, clear, and timely legal
    advice to enable the CIA's mission. The CIA operates under
    statutory authority and under the President's direction. I
    would lead the Office of General Counsel in ensuring that the
    CIA operates in accordance with the law.
        Second, I would work closely with lawyers across the
    Executive Branch. I strongly value such interagency
    collaboration, and I would build on relationships with
    attorneys at the National Security Council, the Department of
    Justice, the Department of War, and other agencies to ensure
    that policymakers receive the best legal advice in support of
    our national security.
        Third, I would lead the Office of the General Counsel to
    work closely with this Committee to enable your oversight work
    and to provide appropriate transparency about the basis for CIA
    actions.
        As President Eisenhower said when laying the cornerstone of
    the CIA headquarters: ``Success cannot be advertised. Failure
    cannot be explained.''
        That remains true today. The CIA's activities are generally
    outside of public view, and it is a testament to the patriotic
    service of intelligence officers and also to the importance of
    this Committee's oversight.
        At that same cornerstone ceremony, it was announced that
    the words from the Gospel of John would be inscribed at the
    entrance of the CIA headquarters. Those words, as anyone who
    visits the CIA knows, are ``And ye shall know the truth and the
    truth shall make you free.''
        If confirmed, I would support that mission to know the
    truth and to protect and promote freedom.
        Finally, I want to thank my family, including my parents,
    who are here. I come from a long line of Americans, from
    farmers to coal miners, who have loved our country and worked
    faithfully to raise families and serve their communities.
    Sitting here today, I am honored with the opportunity to help
    protect our country and those communities.
        I also thank my wife of over 18 years. We met in law
    school, and she has had a distinguished career as a government
    lawyer. I would not be here without her steadfast support and
    wisdom. As the Proverb says: She is far more precious than
    jewels. Our children are also here today in hopes that they
    will be inspired seeing our great American Republic at work.
        Thank you again. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The written statement of the witness follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.
        I've been on this Committee for almost 11 years now, and
    we've had a number of general counsel nominees come in front of
    it, and the questions often turn into very grave, somber
    concerns that the nominee will have the courage to stand up and
    say no when his bosses want to violate the law. I think this
    approach is wrongheaded on a couple of counts.
        First, it goes without saying that any lawyer should tell
    their clients if they are prepared to take an action that is
    against the law, but the first count is that in my experience
    of 11 years, the much more likely scenario in which the Office
    of General Counsel faces pressure is to distort their legal
    judgment to provide a shield to decisionmakers who don't want
    to make tough decisions.
        So rather than having a Chief of Station or a high-ranking
    Director of Operations officer, even the CIA Director come to
    you and press you to bless something that would be illegal, it
    is more likely to try to get your office to say no, something
    is out of bounds when, in fact, it is in bounds and that's just
    a decision that those decisionmakers care not to make.
        So, you said in your opening statement, Mr. Simmons, that
    you would give clear advice and counsel to any decisionmaker
    when something is against the law.
        I assume the opposite is true, as well. If you are pressed
    to say something is against the law when, in reality, it is
    perfectly legal, will you give that clear opinion that in your
    legal judgment the action is legal and it is something the
    decisionmaker is going to have to decide for himself?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman.
        Yes. I think Director Ratcliffe said it well, when he was
    here, that he would follow the law as far as it goes and no
    further.
        And one of the key distinctions here is between law and
    policy. And I think if confirmed as General Counsel, my
    obligation would be to provide legal advice--what are the legal
    authorizations and limits. And then that equips the
    policymakers to make the important decisions they need to make
    for our national security.
        Chairman Cotton. And those are decisions that they make as
    policymakers that a general counsel does not make as the legal
    adviser?
        Mr. Simmons. That's correct, Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        So that's the first count I think that approach is wrong
    on.
        The second count is that the premise of the question
    usually is that there is, you know, rogue, nefarious actors
    throughout the Agency, maybe up to and including the Director
    and the President himself, who are always trying to break the
    law in some kind of dastardly way. In reality, clients go to
    their lawyers every day in America thinking about doing
    something that turns out to be a violation of the law.
        An Arkansas farmer could want to build a fence on what he
    thinks is his property line. He goes to a lawyer and the lawyer
    says: Actually, that's a country right-of-way. You can't build
    the fence there. Or, a corporate executive may be planning to
    go on Squawk Box on CNBC and say a bunch of stuff about the
    stock of his company and the general counsel has to say:
    Actually, sir, that would be a violation of securities law. Or,
    a union chief in negotiations might be prepared to take certain
    actions and the union general counsel has to say: Actually,
    that would violate Federal labor law.
        And, yes, maybe even a Chief of Station or CIA Director or
    the President himself might think we want to do this, or could
    we take this action, and the general counsel says no, that
    would not be in accordance with the law; when there is no
    nefarious purpose at all, it is simply you are advising clients
    who by and large are not lawyers.
        That's why our country has lawyers, is to advise laymen
    about what the law says.
        In each of those cases, though, you would expect your
    lawyer to understand your objectives and try to work toward
    them--toward a solution that accomplishes the client's
    objectives but is consistent with the law, whether you're the
    Arkansas farmer or the corporate executive or the union boss or
    yes, even the CIA Director.
        So, Mr. Simmons, can we count on you, whenever you're
    giving your plain and unvarnished advice about what is and is
    not on the right side of the law, to also work with all of your
    clients at the Agency and across the Executive Branch to help
    them get to yes, to achieve their objectives in a manner that
    is consistent with the law?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairman.
        Yes. Throughout my legal career, I've maintained that type
    of open dialogue. I think it is important to have a
    relationship of trust with a client so that they can speak
    freely about what their objectives are and so that they can
    receive honest and clear counsel about what the law requires.
    And if confirmed, that would be my approach.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Vice Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you
    know, I am going to ask you on this subject because quite
    honestly, just recently Senator Kaine and I went through an
    extensive process to nominate U.S. Attorneys in the
    Commonwealth of Virginia, as you know, Eastern District,
    Western District. They had all the appropriate political bona
    fides. One was actually the Republican Speaker of the House.
    And we agree with the Chairman, you've got to work within the
    law. We did ask them, though, both: Will you adhere to the law
    and not do something that you feel is illegal or inappropriate?
        I think we ended up picking the two right guys because they
    both have been fired because they were asked to do things that
    at least they felt was counter to the law.
        So, in that spirit, in the same hope, Mr. Simmons, that you
    will have the same approach of honoring the law, first and
    foremost--I mean, as I cited in my opening comments, the
    President recently told a gathering of U.S. military leaders
    they should use American cities as, quote, ``training grounds
    for our military'' and that ``America is under invasion from
    within, no different than a foreign enemy.''
        Mr. Simmons, you've been a law professor. You know the law.
    Do you agree with the President that America is under invasion
    ``from within, no different than a foreign enemy''?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Vice Chairman. I
    think, to your point about, you know, expectations, I would say
    that I've spoken with Director Ratcliffe, and his expectation
    for me is to provide clear and honest legal advice and to
    comply with the law based on that advice.
        And throughout my career, and if confirmed to this
    position, my approach would be to provide that honest----
        Vice Chairman Warner. Yeah, but Mr. Simmons, does that mean
    if the President states it, regardless of what factual basis
    may be underlying the statement, that it is then within the
    law?
        Mr. Simmons. So, on that particular issue, I haven't
    reviewed the legal authorities around that issue.
        I mean, for example, at the CIA, I know that Section 104(a)
    of the National Security Act provides that the CIA shall not
    have law enforcement powers. So that's the type of clear advice
    that would be provided if that question arose.
        Vice Chairman Warner. In other words, if in the effort--and
    again, I won't quiz you more on the fact of taking folks off of
    counterterrorism, counterespionage, or cyber to put them on
    immigration--but, if the President says because of this ``enemy
    from within'', he wants the CIA to join in with the American
    military in fighting this ``enemy from within,'' what counsel
    would you give to Director Ratcliffe?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Vice Chairman.
        The mission of the CIA is to collect foreign intelligence,
    and there are a number of limitations enshrined in the law with
    respect to domestic activity.
        Vice Chairman Warner. So, you will advise the Director that
    it would be illegal and wrong if the CIA was asked to help work
    with the military in enforcing against the ``enemy within''?
        Simple yes or no would be fine.
        Mr. Simmons. As I said, section 104(a) provides that----
        Vice Chairman Warner. I'll take that as a yes.
        Mr. Simmons, you obviously are well informed. Do you see
    any decline in the threats from China, Russia, or international
    terrorists in terms of their effort to try to undermine the
    United States of America?
        Mr. Simmons. Vice Chairman, I think we still face
    significant threats to our national security from those areas.
        Vice Chairman Warner. So, no undermining of those; we've
    not seen China or Russia pull back from cyberattacks?
        Mr. Simmons. Not to my knowledge, Vice Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. We've not seen terrorists across the
    Middle East--and the chairman and I agree, we have to search
    those out and destroy them--they have not lessened their hatred
    for America?
        Mr. Simmons. Not to my knowledge.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate that.
        Again, I am not going to ask you a policy question then
    about why we are taking FBI agents, between 25 and 45 percent,
    off of their duties in those critical tasks and putting them on
    the immigration detail, where, frankly, reports we've got back
    is they feel that they are candidly wasting their time. But
    listen, if you get confirmed, you're going to have a very
    important job, and CIA General Counsels in the past have been
    between a rock and a hard place many times. And I hope you will
    adhere to this.
        I do want to make sure, again, one of the things that the
    Chairman said was, to the fullest extent possible, you will
    brief all Members of the Committee on intelligence activities
    and covert activities rather than just the chairman and the
    vice chairman?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, Vice Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I am going to hold you to that.
        Very quickly, Mr. Metzger. You know, this Committee has
    spent a lot of time looking at China and economic competition.
    I know you cited a number of things around drug trafficking and
    terrorism and other things. I hope you will continue to work
    with us. I think the OIA has a great deal of opportunities to
    really look at this economic competition with China, and I hope
    you'll continue to work with us on that subject.
        Mr. Metzger. Vice Chairman, thank you for your question.
    Certainly, I share your concern about China and economic
    encroachment, and if confirmed, I pledge to continue working
    with this Committee to that end.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Congratulations to both of you and your
    families on your nomination.
        Mr. Metzger, you and I haven't had a chance to work
    directly together, but if Senator Rounds vouches for you,
    that's good enough for me.
        Mr. Metzger. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Simmons, we had a more extended
    conversation which I enjoyed very much in my office. And we
    talked about how lawyers in the Intelligence Community
    determine what the law is and how different that is than the
    typical lawyer in private practice who's got statutes,
    Constitution case law, and are able to basically get a pretty
    good idea of what the law is. Although lawyers are famous for
    being able to argue both sides of a legal issue and not agree.
        But one statute that is in the law is the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act, section 702. And you're familiar
    with the importance of that particular provision and the
    foreign intelligence that it allows the U.S. Government to
    glean. And I believe the figure is that about 60 percent of the
    President's Daily Brief is a product of that section of the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
        You also know that we fairly recently reformed the law and
    dealt with concerns--legitimate concerns--about abuses and
    privacy concerns which we are obviously concerned with, as
    well; but do you support the reauthorization of section 702 of
    the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it is currently
    written?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator, and I enjoyed meeting with
    you as well.
        Yes, I do support reauthorization. I think Director
    Ratcliffe said it well when he spoke here, that it is an
    indispensable national security tool. I've seen at the State
    Department as well, in addition to the statistic you gave about
    the President's Daily Brief, that information derived from
    section 702 provides critical insights for a wide range of U.S.
    foreign policy and national security issues on a daily basis.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, again, in our conversation in my
    office, we were sort of commiserating about, again, how
    different the role of a lawyer is in the Intelligence Community
    than in private practice where you do have a lot more that you
    can refer to in terms of statutes and case law and the like,
    but, basically, as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community you
    have limited tools.
        You have the Constitution. You have the Executive Orders.
    You have statutes like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
    Act. But many times there is no clear legal answer. And I
    appreciate the Chairman's line of inquiry.
        Recently, I was reading a book by Dan Wang called
    ``Breakneck,'' who compared China and America, and he said the
    problem in America is we have lawyers running the government.
    In China, they are all engineers, and they know how to build
    things. And lawyers are famous for saying no and creating
    obstacles to getting to a solution or an outcome.
        But let me just ask you again: Do you view it as your job
    to advise the policymakers on how they can achieve their
    objectives legally, as opposed to just saying no, you can't do
    that?
        Do you try to help them?
        Do you try to help to get to yes by saying: You can do it
    in this way but not that way?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.
        That is a good summary of my approach. I think as you said,
    the starting point is going to be the text of the Constitution
    on the relevant statute or the Executive Order; but then it is
    critical to understand the objective of the policymaker. And
    then the question becomes what is the authorization for that
    and what is the path forward that complies with the law.
        And I think it is challenging because there is no case law,
    but it does take careful, thoughtful lawyering to analyze that
    legal basis and provide counsel on how to proceed toward an
    objective in a way that complies with the law.
        Senator Cornyn. And I told you that I was a fan of General
    Hayden's book called ``Playing to the Edge,'' because I don't
    want the Intelligence Community to be too risk averse or
    worried about their legal exposure, for example.
        I want to be able to let them operate within the law, but
    to the extent the law permits them to engage in operations that
    are in the national security interests of the United States, I
    want them to do it without fear that they are stepping over the
    line or engaging in or exposing themselves to liability of some
    kind.
        Do you agree that part of your job is going to be to define
    where that line is to the extent possible so that policymakers
    can operate within the law but up to where the--make sure we
    are within the law, but within the maximum the law permits?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. I do agree with that.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to use about a minute of my time
    for a brief statement and then to a unanimous consent request
    and then on to questions.
        Chairman Cotton. So, you are not going to yield back four
    minutes of your time to me?
        Senator Wyden. I know that it is tempting that I do that,
    but I thank my colleague for his consent.
        Chairman Cotton. Fire away.
        Senator Wyden. Confirmation hearings of intelligence agency
    general counsels are the only opportunity Congress and the
    public have to hear the nominee's views before they go on to
    make legal decisions in secret, and yet this year's
    Intelligence Authorization bill would eliminate Senate advice
    and consent for both the CIA and ODNI General Counsels, meaning
    that this will be the last of these hearings.
        The chairman and I have talked about this. I've got a
    longer statement opposing the provisions, and my unanimous
    consent request, Mr. Chairman, would be to have a letter to the
    Committee from 21 organizations entered into the record.
        Chairman Cotton. Without objection.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simmons, I want to follow up on what we talked about in
    the office, and I appreciate you're coming up.
        Do you agree that there is no basis in law for designating
    domestic terrorist organizations?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator, and I also
    appreciated the opportunity to meet with you.
        As discussed, my focus at the State Department, for
    example, has been on a foreign terrorist organization
    designation. That's a statutory authority: 8 USC, section 1189,
    which provides a decision about what is a foreign terrorist
    organization, and one prong of that analysis is that it be a
    foreign organization. There are a number of factors around the
    analysis of whether it's a foreign organization such as, where
    is the base of operations; what is the location and nationality
    of members of that organization----
        Senator Wyden. My time is pretty short, and we have had
    others come here and I got a clear yes answer and I thought
    that's what we would do today. So again, is there a basis in
    law for designating domestic terrorist organizations or is
    there no basis?
        Mr. Simmons. Again, my focus, Senator, at State Department,
    has been on the question of a foreign terrorist organization,
    so I haven't reviewed authorities or analysis with respect to a
    domestic organization.
        Senator Wyden. I just think that's unfortunate because I
    left the meeting yesterday believing that you thought there was
    no basis in law for designating domestic terrorist
    organizations.
        This is a crucial issue, because the President has taken
    the position that he can designate Antifa as a domestic
    terrorist organization. I hope you'll give us a yes or no
    answer at least for the record, so that we can have some sense
    of where you would be going on this.
        One other question, if I might.
        Secretary Rubio has said that one of those boats the
    administration blew up could have been interdicted instead.
    We've been talking about these kinds of issues in this
    Committee for some time.
        Is it legal to kill people who they could have captured or
    arrested?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, I understand there have been other
    submissions to Congress from the administration, a war powers
    report and a notice under section 1230. I also understand that
    the General Counsel of the Department of War attended and
    participated in a classified briefing on that issue last week
    and I would refer questions about those military activities to
    them.
        Senator Wyden. I would only say, yesterday I left the
    meeting with the sense that you had some concrete thoughts
    about policy direction, not how things would come up in
    imaginary scenarios, but a policy direction. Today, I haven't
    felt that way. On the basis of this, I am going to be opposing
    your nomination.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to
    both of you for your service to the Nation.
        Mr. Simmons, my question for you is very straightforward.
    Who's the better attorney, you or your wife?
        Mr. Simmons. My wife.
        Senator Lankford. OK. Good answer. Good answer in a public
    setting when you're under oath. I appreciate that.
        For y'all, thank you for the time that you've given to the
    Nation, sacrifices your families have gone through.
        Mr. Metzger, I was the practice round for Senator Rounds,
    where you as a designee and I had a couple of years to be able
    to serve together. I saw how hard you worked and how
    professional you are. I also got to hear the love story of your
    time with your bride and then be able to go through that
    process. So grateful for that time with you. Let me get a
    chance to be able to bounce a couple of questions off you,
    though.
        Mr. Metzger, I want to be able to drill down a little bit
    more. Oklahoma made the decision several years ago, which I
    vehemently disagreed with, but we vote in my State like we do
    around the country to allow medical marijuana use in my State
    with a very loose law. It was the belief of some that then we
    wouldn't have to deal with illegal marijuana in the State, that
    it would all be legalized.
        What has happened has been an influx of thousands of
    Chinese operations coming to our State. The Oklahoma Bureau of
    Narcotics has identified what they believe is 2,000 illegal
    Chinese marijuana growers. Human trafficking has come into the
    State, all sorts of illegal activity in the distribution of
    drugs across the country coming from my own home State.
        Now, a lot of that's going to be based on tracking dollars,
    tracking the movement of people that have come across our
    border illegally that was allowed under the Biden
    administration. That has been a very difficult issue. It is one
    of the many issues that the Treasury has to identify on how we
    are moving fentanyl, other drugs, and drug operations into our
    country.
        How do you plan to be able to take that on?
        Mr. Metzger. Senator, first of all, thank you for your very
    kind words and for your question.
        Secondly, I share your concern with regard to Chinese
    economic encroachment, be it through fentanyl precursor
    trafficking to Mexico or to the narco-terrorist cartels there
    or in your home State of Oklahoma with regard to marijuana grow
    and distribution.
        As I said in my opening statement, if confirmed, I plan to
    scour the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and encourage the
    team there to pursue all of the Chinese economic misgivings
    with regard to fentanyl drug use and any money laundering.
        As I understand it, in Treasury there is a fantastic team
    in FinCen and the AML anti-money laundering team. And as
    potential customers, were I to be confirmed, I look forward to
    keeping them apprised of relevant and recent financial
    intelligence.
        Senator Lankford. So, you have a unique role in the CFIUS
    process to be able to examine, you know, operations that are
    trying to be able to move and purchase land, purchase
    businesses, all those. That's a powerful role to be able to be
    engaged in to help identify where there is potential long-term
    threats. How do you see that role and what would you have
    responsibility for?
        Mr. Metzger. Senator, thank you for your question. I think
    you're right, the CFIUS process and the Committee itself is one
    of the tantamount responsibilities of the Treasury in this
    modern era.
        As I understand, the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence
    and Analysis is tasked with ensuring that the Secretary, the
    President, and the other Cabinet-level officials on the
    Committee receive timely and accurate information with regard
    to foreign investment in the United States and are able to make
    a determination or make reference to the President for his
    determination.
        Senator Lankford. That would be helpful. Mr. Metzger, one
    last question on this.
        Mr. Simmons, you are not getting off easy with me. We had a
    great conversation in the office, and I appreciate your input
    on that.
        Mr. Metzger, during the Biden administration, Iran was
    considered the largest State sponsor of terrorism. We had
    sanctions on their oil sales, but public reports say in the
    last year Iran has still sold $43 billion of oil, much of it to
    China.
        How do we wrap our arms around some of the sanctions
    violations that are happening with the largest State sponsor of
    terrorism in the world?
        Mr. Metzger. Senator, thank you for your question. I share
    your concern with regard to Iran, as you know.
        I think during the first Trump administration, the
    President demonstrated deft and sound leadership with regard to
    containing Iran, with regard to countering Iran and their
    illicit financial activities, and most importantly with regard
    to countering their global terror network.
        I think at the end of the day, if confirmed to serve as
    Assistant Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
    it will be incumbent upon me to follow the money to counter
    illicit money laundering and to ensure that Iran isn't able to
    evade U.S. sanctions designations.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you both.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both for your willingness to serve.
        Mr. Simmons, the White House recently informed Congress
    that President Trump has declared us to be at ``war'' with
    unspecified drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere citing new
    anti-cartel authorities. President Trump also directed air
    strikes against boats in the Caribbean, allegedly carrying drug
    traffickers and narcotics.
        Mr. Simmons, in your capacity as Principal Deputy Legal
    Adviser to Secretary Rubio, did you play any role in the
    deliberations surrounding these anti-cartel authorities?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Simmons. I've advised on a wide range of national
    security matters while at the State Department.
        Senator Bennet. Did you advise on the anti-cartel
    authorities that the administration has used?
        Well, let me ask you--that the administration has used in
    part to justify the actions that have been taken against those
    cartels?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks, Senator. I am not in a position to
    discuss the specifics of any internal operations.
        Senator Bennet. I'm not asking you the specifics other than
    to ask you if you were involved in those discussions.
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position to
    discuss the specifics of internal deliberations.
        Senator Bennet. I don't know why you can't tell this
    Committee the answer to that question.
        Mr. Simmons. I appreciate that, Senator, and I hope you'll
    understand the importance of leadership receiving confidential
    advice.
        Senator Bennet. What is your understanding in front of this
    Committee of the limits on the President's authority to use
    military force to combat criminal activity like drug
    trafficking?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.
        I mentioned previously the notice under Section 1230 which
    stated that it was an exercise of the President's Article II
    authority in self-defense and defense of others against ongoing
    attacks by designated terrorist----
        Senator Bennet. Is that the advice that you gave to the
    Secretary of State on this subject?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, these were military strikes conducted
    by the Department of War, and as I said, the general counsel of
    that department----
        Senator Bennet. Is it correct that you didn't have any
    discussion about this at the State Department?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position
    to--I don't know all of the discussions that may or may not
    have taken place at the State Department.
        Senator Bennet. Is it correct that you did not participate
    in any discussions about this while you were at the State
    Department?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, as I said, I am not in a position to
    discuss any legal advice that I may or may not have provided.
        Senator Bennet. Do you agree that the CIA doesn't have any
    authority to conduct operations within U.S. borders to counter
    drug cartels?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.
        I agree that there are significant limitations enshrined in
    the law with respect to any domestic activities by the CIA.
        Senator Bennet. Do you agree that designating or labeling
    an organization as a quote, end quote, ``terrorist
    organization'' is not in itself a sufficient basis to justify
    the use of force against that organization?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator.
        I mentioned previously the designation, the FTO designation
    as a foreign terrorist organization. And that assessment in
    addition to the point I discussed about requiring a foreign
    organization, requires that there be terrorist activity and
    threats against the United States. That FTO designation has a
    separate legal purpose in the sense that it relates to
    sanctions when there is material support. So, there is--it's a
    separate legal category than a lawful use of force. But that--
    that assessment includes one about threats to United States
    national security.
        Senator Bennet. Do you believe that designating or labeling
    an organization as a terrorist organization is itself a
    sufficient basis to justify the use of force against that
    organization; is that your reading of the law?
        Mr. Simmons. My reading specifically on the foreign
    terrorist organization, FTO designation, does not legally have
    a decisive impact either way on the lawful use of force.
        Senator Bennet. Do you agree, Mr. Simmons, that anti-cartel
    authorities provide no basis for the administration to justify
    any actions against its domestic political opponents whom
    various administration officials have also designated as
    terrorists?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator. I am not
    familiar with all of the law around anti-cartel activities. As
    I said, if the focus is on domestic----
        Senator Bennet. I am not asking you--This is not a hard
    question. This is an easy question. So let me ask again.
        Do you agree that these so-called anti-cartel authorities
    provide no basis for the administration to justify any actions
    against its domestic political opponents whom various
    administration officials have also designated as terrorists?
        I am asking you for your view as a lawyer.
        Mr. Simmons. I am not sure which anti-cartel authorities
    you are referring to.
        Senator Bennet. For the ones that you and I have been
    talking about for the last five minutes, Mr. Simmons.
        Mr. Simmons. Is there a specific statutory provision you
    want to know?
        Senator Bennet. I've given you the specific language that
    the administration has relied on to take the actions that it's
    taken, and now I am asking you whether or not the
    administration could use that----
        I hear you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
        --could use that authority to turn it against its domestic
    political opponents, some of whom it called terrorists. And I
    find it very hard to believe that anybody with a law degree,
    much less as somebody with your excellent preparation, can't
    answer that question directly. And the answer is no. I can't
    believe that's not your answer, Mr. Simmons.
        Mr. Simmons. Well, I think, as I said, that FTO designation
    requirement includes as a factor that there be a foreign
    organization.
        Senator Bennet. I'll take that as a no.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simmons, first of all, let me just kind of rephrase a
    little bit here.
        What's your understanding of the general counsel's role in
    providing timely and relevant reporting to congressional
    oversight committees? You are in front of an oversight
    committee right now.
        Share your thoughts with me. What do you consider to be
    timely in terms of your role in making sure that it gets done?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. And, I appreciated the
    opportunity to meet with you.
        Sections 502 and 503 of the National Security Act make
    clear that the CIA would keep the intelligence committees fully
    and currently informed of intelligence activities and with due
    regard for protection of classified information.
        There is also a separate provision, section 510, that
    provides that the general counsels of each element of the
    Intelligence Community--so, including the General Counsel of
    the CIA--would notify the committee of any significant legal
    interpretation of the Constitution or Federal law affecting
    intelligence activities.
        So, in addition to the general obligation to keep this
    Committee fully and currently informed, and I think the General
    Counsel's responsibility would be to advise on--you know, apply
    that statutory provision to any particular facts and
    circumstances, and then there is a separate provision
    specifically on significant legal interpretations.
        Senator Rounds. In our office, we talked a little bit about
    some of the advanced technology that is deployed or will be
    deployed, and not only by us but by our adversaries as well,
    and artificial intelligence and the use of the quantum--for
    lack of a better term, the quantum environment is going to be a
    critical part of that advancement, and it is happening a lot
    faster than people realize.
        How do you plan to augment the efforts that are ongoing,
    and how do you see your role in the development or use of this
    particular advancement in technology?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.
        I agree that these emerging technologies are critically
    important, and I do think that it is critical to have good
    legal analysis around these emerging technologies because, as
    this Committee surely knows, the law sometimes struggles to
    keep up with the technology. These advances are happening so
    rapidly. So, it's a question of reviewing the law that exists
    with an innovative and careful analysis, applying it to a new
    technology.
        That's something I've done in the private sector. I was
    involved in a litigation matter related to the largest bitcoin
    mining facility in North America. These are huge data centers.
        They are important to our national security, important to
    our strategic advantages.
        And if confirmed as general counsel, it would be a priority
    of mine to provide that innovative, careful legal analysis of
    existing statutory and legal frameworks to emerging
    technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing,
    and so on.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Mr. Metzger, I don't think they've hazed you much yet
    today, and I suspect that you're probably not going to get much
    hazing at all.
        I think your reputation on this committee is such that,
    while we hate to lose you from the committee, we most certainly
    think that you're moving to a spot in which you can be a real
    asset to the Department of the Treasury.
        Let me speak to you. Can you speak a little bit about how
    your time on this Committee will support the role of which
    you've been nominated?
        Mr. Metzger. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for your
    question.
        Over the last four years, I've had a front row seat to the
    absolutely critical nature of Congressional oversight that
    knows no bounds with regard to the Intelligence Community.
        If confirmed, I look forward to continuing robust
    cooperation with this Committee, with its Members, and with its
    professional staff, whom I am very, very proud to call peers
    and colleagues.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        I am going to slide back to Mr. Simmons for just a second.
    I think with regard to artificial intelligence and what we are
    going to be seeing happening, I think the message that we would
    like to share with you is that, if something was wrong before--
    not legal before--the use of artificial intelligence in that
    action does not make it right; or if something was right before
    and the use of artificial intelligence is applied to speed up a
    process, it does not make it wrong. Would that be a fair way to
    begin the discussion?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. I think that's a good
    example of the type of innovative application of the law as it
    exists in an emerging technology.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simmons, I am a little confused. You've mentioned
    several times a department that doesn't exist in our
    government. What's the name of the department that Mr. Hegseth
    is the secretary of?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. It is, by statute, the
    Department of Defense. And----
        Senator King. Why did you call it the Department of War?
    That's not the name. Its name is Department of Defense
    according to 10 USC 111(a) in the National Security Amendments
    of 1949. Why are you making something up?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. That sounds like an astute
    citation by a UVA law grad. I would say that there is an
    Executive Order that----
        Senator King. Executive Orders aren't law, Mr. Simmons. The
    statutes of the United States are laws. If that name's going to
    be changed, it should be changed here. But let me move on.
        There is a rumor circulating that people applying for
    promotions or assignments or admission to employment at the CIA
    are being asked to affirm the assertion that Donald Trump won
    the election in 2020.
        Were you asked that question, and do you know of anybody
    else that's being asked that question?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator.
        I am not aware of that question being asked.
        I think I agree with what Director Ratcliffe said when he
    was here which is that it is critical for our intelligence to
    be apolitical so that our policymakers are best informed about
    national----
        Senator King. So, it's untrue that that's become a litmus
    test in the CIA?
        Mr. Simmons. I am certainly not aware of that, Senator.
        Senator King. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        As Secretary Rubio revoked the status of several lawful
    permanent residents when you were the Acting General Counsel
    based on their exercise of the First Amendment, the Court said
    this was a misuse of the power of their respective offices to
    target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation, primarily
    on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.
        Were you involved in the upcoming support for that decision
    by Secretary Rubio?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Senator. As I said before, I am not
    in a position to discuss specific----
        Senator King. I don't buy that, Mr. Simmons. I know about
    executive privilege and about legal privilege. That goes to the
    content. You won't even tell us if you were in the room? I
    don't think that's privileged.
        I am asking you, did you provide advice on this subject to
    Secretary Rubio? There is no privilege for that statement.
        Mr. Simmons. There have been many matters in which the
    statutory authority with respect to lawful permanent residence
    has arisen. A number of them are in litigation now, and those
    cases are being litigated in the courts.
        Senator King. It's not your----
        You're doing a really good job today of not answering
    questions.
        The question is really simple. Were you involved in
    providing advice to the Secretary on the issue of revocation of
    lawful permanent residence on the basis of their free speech
    assertions? A simple yes or no question: Were you involved, did
    you provide advice?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, sitting here today, I do not recall
    specifically whether I advised on that exact issue.
        Senator King. OK. Well, I guess I have to take that.
        Another straightforward yes or no question: Is it legal for
    the CIA to engage in activities in the continental United
    States?
        Mr. Simmons. Thank you for your question, Senator. The
    definition of covert action in section 503 refers to activities
    abroad. And I think there are other----
        Senator King. So, the answer to my question is, it is not
    legal, right?
        Mr. Simmons. I----
        Senator King. I asked you a question. Is it legal for the
    CIA to conduct activities within the United States, yes or no?
        Mr. Simmons. I think there are, you know, incidental or
    ancillary activities that happen in the United States. Whether
    covert action is----
        Senator King. People go to work at Langley. I get that. But
    I don't understand your--you've even read the law that said
    it's the law is the CIA can only operate abroad. That's the
    assumption of this Committee for as long as I've been on it.
    Can't you just say that?
        Mr. Simmons. Senator, I agree there are significant
    limitations on the CIA in the law. There are no police,
    subpoena, or law enforcement powers. There is no internal
    security function. There are----
        Senator King. Covert action, no, right? Intelligence
    collection, no, correct?
        Mr. Simmons. The mission of the CIA is foreign
    intelligence.
        Senator King. That's--that's good. Thank you.
        The actions in the Caribbean, you mentioned that we had a
    briefing, that Congress had been briefed. They did send a
    notice. But I was in a hearing on the Armed Services Committee
    earlier this week with the General Counsel of the Defense
    Department, and they won't give us the opinion that underlies
    the--provides a legal basis.
        They say that it is classified, or it is internal
    deliberations or something. The Congress has not seen the
    Office of Legal Counsel opinion as to the legality of those
    strikes, and I think it is important to emphasize that Congress
    has not been given that.
        As a lawyer, as a professor of law, doesn't it give you
    some pause that under this situation the President is
    designating an organization as a terrorist organization and
    then taking lethal action? The President is the prosecutor, the
    judge, the jury, and the executioner.
        Doesn't that bother you as a student of the law?
        Mr. Simmons. Thanks for your question, Senator. First of
    all, I haven't reviewed all the classified information around
    this, so I don't know all the facts and circumstances. I would
    say that Article II of the Constitution provides that the
    President is the Commander in Chief and there are authorities
    with respect to self-defense.
        Senator King. What does the Constitution say about who
    declares war?
        Mr. Simmons. I think Senator Wyden raised that. Article I
    provides that Congress shall have the power to declare war.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony
    today. As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention to hold a
    committee vote on these nominations as soon as possible.
    Therefore, for planning purposes, any Member who wishes to
    submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please
    do so by close of business tomorrow, October 9.
        I trust that we can count on prompt answers from our two
    nominees to allow for further consideration.
        Vice Chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate both witnesses'
    testimonies.
        I am not going to ask you again, but I am going to expect
    that there is this adherence to the law. I hate to have to ask
    that question, but I've seen two, I think, distinguished
    individuals who stuck by that and lost their jobs as U.S.
    Attorneys.
        I hope you at least review those circumstances and make
    those same kinds of commitments.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, everyone, for your attendance
    today.
        The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon the hearing was
    adjourned at 4:31 p.m.)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]