professor tiefer, were you aware of that fact? >> my sense is that you say they produce documents responsive is widely to say they didn't produce other documents, and that was my sense, yes. there was a mixture including withholding of important documents. >> so, professor tiefer, your testimony assumes that the department has asserted executive privilege to withhold documents. before today you are aware that the department has not asserted any kind of executive privilege or withheld any documents to the committee, is that right? >> that is correct, and i would expand on that. i believe in as much interplay, not just negotiating but, frankly, finding between the committee and the justice department before taking the ultimate step. one of the steps is to force, and this has worked in the past and people at this table have been with me in this, forced executive branch to say we're going to claim executive privilege or we're not going to claim executive privilege. and at this point they haven't been put to that. >> now, if they are s

tiefer, charles tiefer, dr. tiefer. >> thank you. and ambassador kennedy, normally these are combative questions. your long-standing expertise and experience is acknowledged. i have three questions. i'm short on time and you can answer them. one is -- i was pleased to hear that you're going to take another look at the $132 million for the new embassy compound in first kuwaiti and i commend mr. ervin. he was a former inspector general and he knows there's more in a report than other people might otherwise. i hope it slightly adjusts that you'll not only ask again whether the state department i.g. has more information but more important because the report -- this report ordered and designed the construction of the compound at bag, iraq, in 2009, was extremely detailed. i would hope one could go through it and find the parts of that 132 million which are already just there because they may see we put what we have in the report. and that shouldn't be the end of the matter. my second question is, we went through that out of the police tra

tiefer. we also picked up from bloomberg news service this $518 million figure supposedly cited to the state department. we queried every senior official we can find. we have no idea where that figure has come from, none whatsoever. we are continuing to pursue that. that's the first point. i have no idea what that figure means. >> all right. >> the second thing is that inl has been conducting 100% reconciliation of all iraq related up -- invoices going back prior to 2006. they collected over $40 million, actually $40.8 million related to invoices with an outstanding request for another -- the $37.9 million, and also inl's review of afghan and iraq contractor support services resulted in over $109 million in reduced billings so this goes i believe to the point you're making and also to mr. tiebot's point as well. >> let me understand the figures you gave. you have a demand now for $37.# million with a separate $109 million reduced billing? >> yes. >> okay. >> we are actively engaged. we have -

professor tiefer? >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking minority member. um, for 15 years i was counsel to congress, four years as assistant senate legal counsel and 11 years as deputy general counsel and general counsel in the house of representatives. during that time i worked on a very large number of investigations like this of the justice department or enforcement agencies, and i reviewed the extensive history that my colleagues at the panel have talked about. um, i want to briefly point out the similarities of those instances before focusing on today. um, in 2002, as mort rosenberg has described, i gave full-length written and oral testimony to this committee about a similar issue during the bush administration involving an fbi informant program. and as was laid out in my full-length, um, memo at that time which i am including as an appendix to my testimony today, this showed that this particular committee has the full right to obtain the documents it needs for oversight over enforcement programs, then fbi, today atf. in 1992 i worked with a house su

tiefer, you said the office of inspector general to look into the allegations, $132 million in dispute, and you can't just send a letter demanding payment. that is certainly reasonable. i am surprised the office of inspector general has not responded for request for details. in the largess refusing? >> i will not say they are refusing. i just believe they have not completed whatever word they are doing. i intend to take the question back and pose and again to the office of inspector general and say this is a question i received from one of the commissioners on the commission on wartime contract and it is in -- i think it is a fair question for us to ask and a fair question to know that there is information that backs up the 132 million or doesn't. that building has now been in operation for multiple years. it is operating very, very well. there are no major issues. the compound has been rocketed a number of times and the construction, including taking a direct hits, construction has held and none of the personnel have been injured. >> third, finally, just follow up questions on sigur j