United States Department of State AEs Washington, D.C. 20520 The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, Chairman Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of State (“the Department”) appreciates the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s (‘‘the Committee”) oversight of embassy construction and security. In particular, we are gratefull that you made the Committee's draft report on this matter available to the Department for in camera review. We understand that a primary motivation behind the Committee’s investigation and report is to better ensure the safety and security of embassy personnel. We share that goal. Security is the top priority and comerstone of the Department's embassy construction program. Our own lives and the lives of our friends, colleagues, and, in some cases, family members often depend on the Department's ability to construct safe and secure embassies. The Department cooperated extensively with the Committee’s investigation. We facilitated interviews with 11 Department employees. We made more than 30 productions of documents, provided 10 witnesses for testimony at four of the Committee’s hearings, and briefed Members or staff 10 times. The Department organized and supported 13 Member and staff delegations overseas related to this matter. This cooperation is not only consistent with our continuing commitment to respond to Congressional oversight, but also advances our interest in the full facts being made available to the Committee. In the spirit of that cooperation, the Department requests further exchange with the Committee to ensure sensitive information is adequately protected, and facts are described accurately and fairly. I. In advance of public release, the report should be submitted for an interagency classification and sensiDespite the Committee’s best intentions, the public dissemination of the Committee’s report in its current form would harm the Department's ability to construct safe and secure embassies. The report, as drafted, details security methods and vulnerabilities at specific embassy construction sites, provides information that could be used to identify and target classified areas and communications, describes methods used to secure classified areas, and provides information about the Department's foreign intelligence countermeasures. The report assembles in one place a significant amount of closely held and previously dispersed sensitive information that, if widely disseminated, would certainly be exploited by hostile states or actors to harm national security and potentially endanger our friends and colleagues serving abroad. I would expect that other agencies, whose employees share our facilities, would also share our concerns. For this reason, the Department must insist that, in advance of public release, the report be submitted for an interagency classification and sensitivity review. While such a review would likely incur a small delay in the report’s release, I would note that the investigation has been ongoing for more than two years. Any inconvenience caused by the delay would surely be outweighed by our shared interest in ensuring the construction of safe and secure embassies abroad.' Il. Additional concerns The Department also has significant concerns about the tone of the report and its selective use of evidence. Due to the fact that we do not have a copy of the draft report, it is not possible for the Department to provide a point-by-point response in this letter. Accordingly, the Department requests a copy of the draft report for possession, subject to appropriate controls, in order to facilitate the robust dialogue necessary for a constructive oversight process. In the meantime, * Our concer about the report’s sensitivity should not come as a surprise to the Committee. Department of State documents cited in your report were provided under cover of transmittal letters that stated, in part: Please note that the enclosed documents may contain physical security information and other information that is not appropriate for public release. Further, the documents may also contain confidential proprietary and procurement sensitive data, the disclosure of which could adversely affect the competitive position of ‘contractors and the Department's contracting function. Disclosure of this information beyond HOGR ‘members and staff with a need to access it could adversely affect the ability of the Department to obtain the ‘most competitive price for related services. The public release of any portion of the enclosed documents is not authorized by this communication and, should you wish to disclose any document or portions thereof, ‘we ask that you provide the Department with a reasonable opportunity to inform the Committee of any sensitive information that should be safeguarded.3 the following concerns are representative of the issues the Department intends to raise with the Committee. The Department has no doubt that the report is heavily researched and the product of substantial effort by the Committee. However, in many instances, it lacks context that is material to an honest and factual assessment of the issues. For example, it selectively quotes documents and excerpts from voluminous testimony to advance a particular narrative that stands in contrast to a fair reading of the overall body of evidence. The Department requests an opportunity to identify documents and transcript quotes that rebut or provide necessary context for the report. In addition, the Committee did not avail itself of classified information that explained or contextualized circumstances. Because the information is classified, the Department is unable to rebut publicly the Committee’s allegations. No oversight principle is served by creating public misimpressions through this form of information asymmetry. The Department is providing a separate, classified letter to the Committee today related to this point. We request the Committee consider revising the report in light of the classified letter’s content and that the classified letter be included as a classified annex to the report and referenced in the body of the report as part of the Department's response. It is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of issues highlighted in the report were not first raised by the Committee; most were first identified by Department employees in the ordinary course of their official duties. Construction is a complex and iterative process. These issues were either resolved, or are in the process of being resolved, by Department employees in the ordinary course of their official duties. To the extent that Department employees occasionally disagree about how to achieve their shared objective of safe and secure embassies, those disagreements are an important part of the process. Too often, the report goes beyond elucidating that process and ventures into taking sides in internal Department disagreements, ignoring or dismissing, without basis, information that contradicts the Committee’s conclusions. The report also states, “Department Officials Failed to Testify Truthfully before the Committee.” This is unsupported by a fair reading of the facts. It is reckless and harmful to levy such an accusation. We deeply regret that any misunderstanding between a Department witness and the Committee has resulted in this accusation. We ask that the Committee reconsider this finding, and accurately characterize the misunderstanding.We also request that the names of Department employees below the rank of Assistant Secretary be removed from the report and replaced with their job titles. This request is consistent with the agreement between the Department and the Committee to expedite document production as memorialized in my January 16, 2015, letter to you stating, in part: As we discussed with your staff, the Department's longstanding practice has been to redact the names of employees below the rank of Assistant Secretary. We believe, however, that an accommodation would be appropriate in this instance. Therefore, the Department has agreed to forego its general name/redaction practice for future rolling productions of documents responsive to the June 23 letter. This accommodation should result in documents being produced with many fewer redactions. By providing documents with many fewer redactions than has been customary, the Department trusts that the Committee does not intend to subject named working-level individuals to unwarranted public scrutiny; officials at the Assistant Secretary level and above are the appropriate individuals to address decisions that are the subjects of congressional review. Should you wish to make public the names and/or contact information of any individuals below the rank of Assistant Secretary in these documents, we ask that you first consult with the Department and afford it a reasonable opportunity to raise any privacy-related concerns with the Committee. Publicizing employee names below the Assistant Secretary level in this report is an inappropriate intrusion on the privacy of those individuals and incurs a security risk by drawing attention to employees whose job it is to ensure the security of embassy construction and management. TH. Conclusion Over the course of the Committee's investigation and as detailed above, the Department devoted tremendous resources to cooperating with your requests. The volume of raw investigative material in your possession is a testament to our efforts. In exchange, we have repeatedly asked that you treat our material with care to ensure that people and facilities are not put at risk, and that you conduct an objective analysis of the facts. We repeat that request now, and, to the extent this request may be denied, we formally object.The facts make clear that the Department is committed to ensuring that diplomatic facilities meet all the requirements of our missions abroad, safety and security chief among them, include durability, efficiency, sustainability, flexibility, proximity to counterparts and users, and provide platforms that represent America and demonstrate American know-how and ingenuity. Should the Committee choose to publish the report without substantial revision to address the above concerns, we request that this letter be included as an exhibit to the report. The Department will provide a more thorough response to the report once it is in possession of a copy and can conduct an in-depth review. As always, we would be happy to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Julia Frifield Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs Ce: The Honorable Elijah Cummings