Well, in terms of thompson, we acquired it the end of fis car year 2012 during the shortage of high security beds. Were presently 52 above our rated capacity. I think the way we describe thompson is weve gotten twice the prison at half the price. And we have an appropriation of 44 million to begin the activation of thompson. Thats reflected in the spend plan. The 4 million is retained in fiscal year 2015 for activation costs. And i think what were looking at is a slow rampup of thompson. We hope to hire a warden, i think, in may, that is the plan. Followed by the hiring manager of Food Services and medical staff. Ultimately hiring up to 290 staff and to begin bringing in the first inmates in the july august time frame. We think that was a very good expenditure, a good acquisition where we got a facility thats going to help us with those high security needs that we have, and do it in a costeffective way. Were you a boy scout . Yeah. Do you take your boy without pledge that you will make sure that this thing plays out . Theres going to be differences. That there will never be anybody from Guantanamo Bay there. I promise. Three fingers. Thats boy scouts. Were going to go to dr. Carter. Judge . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me congratulations the administration on the 49th consecutive month of job growth, averaging around 200,000 a month. And close to 9 million new jobs over this stretch of time. One of the questions before your department is how to protect american jobs in terms of intellectual property. And youve been doing a great deal of work in this regard, but obviously theres more work to do when we have, you know, in our the World Economic forum, they said that the u. S. Economy is innovation, is innovation based economy, that the essence of how we have created the wealthiest country in the world is through innovation and new ideas. And so protecting the intellectual property of american inventors and companies is critically important. The chairman has been focused a little aggressively on this tion in this sense of entities going into American Companies particular law firms that work in patent related areas and so on to steal secrets to give their economic competitors an advantage not to their hard work but through utilizing the smarts of our own engineers and scientistscientist s. If you could talk about this work in terms of intellectual property visavis the appropriations request that would be appreciatappreciat ed. This is something that is again a priority for us. Our budget request provides a total of 42. 1 million for intellectual property enforcement spread among our Criminal Division the fbi are office of Justice Programs and the Attorneys Office and represents a 7. 7 increase over fiscal year 2013th level. We have really increased our Enforcement Efforts not only to safeguard the economic wellbeing of our country but also to protect Public Health and safety which is also any people have to understand that this intellectual property theft and the distribution of substandard parts and medicines has the ability to have a negative impact on Public Health and safety. We have an intellectualproperty task force chaired by the Deputy Attorney general where we try to come up with a coordinated highlevel approach to figure out how we investigate and prosecute these crimes. We also work with the White House Office of intellectual property enforcement coordinator and theres a government wide strategy that was published in february of 2013th. We investigate trade secrets is up top parties so we want to work with congress to make sure that our criminal i. T. Laws keep pace with the new technological and emerging trends that we see. These are laws that have to be looked at a thing periodically given the rapid pace of change that we have given the threats that we are confronting and we hope to be able to not only have our budget request but also look forward to working with members of congress to make sure that our laws are kept uptodate as well. Now, after sandy hook there was a push for more states to supply data that they had not yet supplied in terms of people who are ready for purchasing firearms that is people who meet the circumstances that would prevent them. I know in my own state hundreds of thousands of names that had not been supplied were supplied. If you tell us the status of where the National Terms of state compliance with submission of names. That is something to be accurate and i want to respond to you in writing as they get a chance to look at what the compliance rates are. I think one of the things will concern after sandy hook was where we stood with regard to the number of the amount of information we were getting from the states so just as i said to be accurate i want to make sure that i have an ability to look at and just make sure that we are getting accurate information. We have certainly done what we could with regard to the grants we have made it available to enable states to have the Financial Capacity to make this Information Available to the system but i want as i said to have an ability to look at where we actually stand in that regard. I was i went out to the joint Terrorism Centers in virginia and its amazing to see many of your agencies they are working together in terms of the effort, the National Security effort of one of the things we know and that has been a challenge on some of their lives could be the purchase of firearms given our laws and it wasnt one of the al qaeda training videos the notion that one could just walk into a gun store and make a purchase here in america. So reconciling the right of americans to purchase firearms and your responsibilities to protect americans from harm i know you face a lot of challenges. Is there any progress on this particular question of whether or not someone whose name may appear on for instance the nofly list or some other subset of lists could be in any way lawfully put precluded . That is something where the process of working for in their investigative reasons and investigative arguments made as to why we dont want to have those lists necessarily merged. There are different views within the various agencies so thats something we are still trying to wake there work our way through. With regard to the first question i can share some information with regard to the numbers that we have. The mixed index system has doubled from 5. 2 million records in early 28 2008 and at the end of march of 2014 the number of records provided by federal agencies has increased 70 from 4. 1 million to nearly 7 million records in the states have posted an increase of submitted just over 1. 1 in 2000 to 4. 4 and 2014. State agencies prohibiteprohibited from possessing a firearm for Mental Health related reasons has increased by 678 from 410,000 records in 2823. 2 records as of march 31, 2014 so substantial progress has been made with regard to the acquisition of that information that is now part of the system. Thank you. I think its obviously unfortunate that we need to have a sandy hook circumstance for states to supply this information. My own state had not supplied this information but after the incident they did. These are people where laws should be prohibited from a purchase or ownership of firearms but they cant cant be unless their names are in the database so im very pleased that the state of pennsylvania and based on those numbers a lot of other states have complied. This shows the public that even though they were still a lot of work to be done some progress is being made on this front. I was looking over the actual budget request of the president s budget submission and you have about 2. 1 million four support for local and tribal governments which is obviously critically important because a lot of the actual work done on these issues are done at the state and local level. I did want to mention that i see there is a proposed 58 million in the budget which is a reduction of 30 million. This is an area the subcommittee disagrees with the administration and this is an area and i think the only area that has seen an increase in each of the last four years. Its something we are very focused on. We are going to work through the provisions requested we want to support the work being done and i yield back mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman and general holder welcome. Five star general hugh and i are both lawyers and you are the top in america according to the number one lawyer in the federal system and i was a small town district judge but we both have been involved in seeing evidence from witnesses and im sure you have already realized theres a whole lot of difference between what we seek evidence here and well may have an epidemic an opportunity to seek evidence in the courtroom. Quite honestly a strong question the witness can go into a soliloquy so im going to ask you a long question about a series of questions contained therein. It would probably objectionable to board up well but unfortunately thats the way it works here so i just wanted to point that out to you. I have got questions about it. When you were listening or watching you saw the reporters were continually asking when will esb ip here . We heard reports from dallas that fbi agents were on the way all the way from austin so the fbi was coming in somewhere here at the press conference. In this recent shooting you in your opinion will take the lead in the investigation in the 2014 shooting . The seat fbi or the cid . When will that decision be made as to which one will do that and who makes that call . You . The president . House that decision made in 200 . Who makes that call where doj and its resources pulled from the first ford had shooting based on the classified shooting its workforce violence . Being a fine lawyer i am sure you are familiar in your five answers them in the with the definition of terrorism. Did the doj discussed with the dod declassification of the event in 2009 as to whether or not you will be an act of terrorism . It seems impossible that two of her top agencies were not have the conversation about that. You know and i know that ultimately he made a statement that this was the dod classification. Im asking you about as chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States would you classify the 2094 could shooting as a terrorist act or terrorism as defined in 18 usc and had the 2009 shooting occurred at headquarters and would you categorize that as a Workplace Violence up Workplace Violence event and finally how have jurisdictional lines between the fbi and cid and other Law Enforcement agencies back to find when criminal acts are taking place at a military post and in light of their recent shootings should be clarified investigative responsibilities . Lots of questions, sorry. The white house confirmed i guess wednesday night that the department of defense in regard to the investigation. It does mean however the fbi will not try to assist in any way we can with regard to france the capabilities. We will assist in that regard. With regard to the Workplace Violence designation that was based on the dod assessment. Understand your concerns but i will refer you to the department of defense for questions. Interestingly chairman will then Ranking Member fattah appropriately use these questions with dod ended may 2013 letter letter which acknowledge acknowledged in equipment the department of defense designated the attack by an major nidal has saw this quote workplace was something that determination was made by dod as opposed to doj. Would you mind answering my question that i asked you . Had it happen that your headquarters how would would you classify that . Again you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. For the sake of the question assume the exact scenario that happened in ford had in 2009 that has a person of islamic dissent shouting out at bar and he was 30 people and kills 13 or 14 of them would you still take that as a position that was able Workplace Violence act and therefore under a terrorism statutes . Speedys are fact specific things so it would depend on what the persons motivation was was the person a follower of a lucky as hasan was . What was the motive for the shooting and attempt to follow the teachings of alalawki as opposed to workplace problem that you had with your colleagues i can see how that would be classified as a terrorist incident if it happen under the Justice Department but it did then some effects of the situation. I look all the factors that went into the dod designation. I agree that the facts are important. And i just happen to have a copy of the code here. You dont have to be involved with islamic the situation about to commit terrorism in the United States at all, do you . No. Is a defined statutory thing and its pretty simple. It involves acts dangerous to human life that violates federal or state law intended to intimidate a population the population of the government by intimidation or or coercion Entry Entries to affect the conduct of government by mass distraction assassination or kidnapping. It doesnt say a thing about relationships. International terrorism does have a definition of someone outside the country being involved but i first ask you what you considered a terrorist act if that were your office . Again i am not as familiar with what happened at ft. Hood the first time as the people at dod were and im a little hesitant to an essence secondguess the assessment that they made. Still not asking you to secondguess their assessment. Im concerned if you are the top enforcement officer of the United States of america and there is a clear definition of u. S. Code. This is extended and i didnt read all of that but its a clear definition of the u. S. Code and if someone started shooting people in your office and you have multiple people screaming out some kind of political comment, i dont care what it is would you have automatically said this unfortunately is a civil workforce violence problem we have here . It certainly could be a terrorist act. It would depend again on the facts. Those of the kinds of determinations he would have to make. The truth is if it happened it wouldnt really be any consequences is related to your office because the term workforce violence has consequences under the doj but it doesnt have consequences in the term terrorism as a consequence. Both of those terms have major consequences on the lives of those involved. Thats the real issue i have been concerned about since day one. A simple declaration by the administration or the army public or private that says it is a workforce violence act takes two dozen people and puts them in a category where they dont get certain benefits from the federal government as a result of them serving their country and being shot and killed or injured. That is why im asking you this question. I think you ought to at least acknowledge that theres a clear definition under the federal law and by the way texas has won under state law that says i think clearly that the act was terrorism. Whether international or not is up to dispute. That is why ask you for your help. I understand you dont want to answer the question and thats fine but i ask you for your help. I think ive probably used my time. If the judge would yield for a minute. I dont have time to you. I agreed that clearly this was a terrorist act. I think the point it was just term and the first determination was made by the department of defense. As the congress we can change that and we should because as was the case when people lost their lives on on 11 or the pentagon this was an act by the statement of the perpetrator himself. So there is no ambiguity. From the top lawyer at the United States, thats all. Thank you mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Following up on what judge carter said i agree with him and you were here last year. In fact he spoke to some of the individuals. Boy they have really gone through a tough time. Iges on article today and i listened to it going home. Kimberly monthly was shot three times and taken down by hasan and then she got laid laid off you yet she never stopped fighting for the victims in the military in that shooting. Think what judge harding is saying your relationship with the president probably have a better relationship with the president that most of the cabinet members. Well, you do. Youre not denying it. You do. It was not Workplace Violence. People have been heard. They so contact my office some of them. One of the women has moved to the Northern Virginia area. Also our government is partially responsible. Did the bureau missed some of that . There was communication to the major. I spoke to a psychiatrist and forth it who said that a lucky was telling returnees from afghanistan that they should basically say that they were war criminals. The government missed it so it i would ask you on behalf of judge carter if he would take it back, i think we can change what took place in 2009. We wish we could. Its kind of like when you see something you say if only but i think it would go a long way to healing this. And we did do a letter. We are not going to dock you a Million Dollars for this letter but we sent a letter on march 15, 2015 signed by mr. Mccaul and mr. Carter myself with a lot of questions on this and we never got an answer. I would ask you on behalf of judge carter and more so judge carter and on behalf of those who were wounded and the loved ones would you go back to speak to the president and ask if secretary hagel who is in my Congressional District if they would look to redo this in such a way now because the cases over whereby whereby these individuals who were wounded be treated in a much more appropriate way. Could you take that up to with a president . Again. C. Is a questions sir. Im not asking spe