[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]