questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me or Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall 
at (561) 822-5946. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. 
Ms. Clearetha Wright, Victim-Witness Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012664 
TAB 37 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012665 
"Sloman Jeff USAFLS' To 
02/27/2008 09:45 PM 
CC 
bcc 
Subject 
"Oosterbaan, Andrew" 
Fw: Epstein 
Itory: :& This message has benforwarde 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jeffrey Sloman 
To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) 
Sent: Wed Feb 27 21:37:02 2008 
Subject: Epstein 
Jay, 
You have renewed your request for certain information which this Office does 
not generally make available in similar pre-indictment situations. After 
carefully considering your request, I have decided, in my capacity as the 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney, not to make an exception here. 
Regarding the Landon Thomas matter, Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his 
request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes. 
Regarding the offer to extend the current deadline of March 3, 2008 contained 
in my February 25th email. That offer was based on counsel for Mr. Epstein 
meeting with CEOS the week of March 3rd. You indicate that you are 
unavailable. It is hard to imagine that some or all of the other attorneys 
representing Mr. Epstein cannot serve this function. After all, Mr. Epstein is 
also represented by Dean Kenneth Starr, Martin Weinberg, Roy Black, Gerald 
Lefcourt, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, Lily Ann Sanchez, and Guy Lewis. 
That being said, the Southern District of Florida will only renew the offer to 
extend the current deadline if you and the CEOS Section Chief mutually agree 
on a timetable by close of business on Friday, February 29, 2008 to meet and 
complete presentations no later than March 19, 2008. Given that CEOS is ready 
to proceed immediately, this seems like more than ample time. As I indicated 
in my previous email, if CEOS subsequently decides that a federal prosecution 
should not be undertaken against Mr_ Epstein, this Office will close its 
investigation. However, should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's position, Mr. 
Epstein shall have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the 
September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney 
Acosta. 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012666 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
First Asst. US Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012667 
TAB 38 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012668 
05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX 
U• NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Criminal Division 
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 
1400 New York Avenue, NW 
Suite 600 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
• 20005 
TO: 
• OFFICE NUMBER: 
• FAX NUMBER: 
FROM: 
Q001/006 
VI001 
• CEOS: (202) 514-5780 
FAX: (202) 514-1793 
• R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. 
Tay T,efkowit.z, Esq. 
• Alexandra Gelber. 
DATE/TIME: May 16, 2008 
OFFICE NUMBER: (202), 514-5780 
NUMBER OF PAGES, F-3(CLUE>ING THIS SHEET: 5 
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012669 
05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX 
0 0 2 / 0 0 6 
tJ 002 
Child Eaploitarlon and 003-ceraty Section 
Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 
Citigroup Center 
153 E. 53" St. 
New York, NY 10022-4611 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Criminal Division 
Andrew G. Oosterbaan, Chief 
1400 A'ew York Avenue, NW 
Suite 600 
Wialtingion, DC20530 
(202) 514-5780 FAX: (202) 514-1793 
May 15, 2008 
Re: Investigation of Jeffery Epstein 
Dear Mr. Lefkowitz: 
Pursuant to your request and the request of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, we have 
independently evaluated certain issues raised in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein to determine 
whether a decision to prosecute Mr. Epstein for federal criminal violations would contradict 
criminal enforcement policy interests. As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed letters 
written on behalf of Mr. Epstein on February 1, 2007, June 25, 2007, July 6, 2007, March 28, 
2008, April 8, 2008, April 28, 2008, and May 14, 2008, with their attachments. We have also 
reviewed memos prepared by the U.S. Attorney's Office. As you will recall, we met with you 
and other representatives of Mr. Epstein to further discuss your views on the propriety of a 
federal prosecution. We have discussed the factual and legal issues you raise with the Criminal 
Division's Appellate Section, and we consulted with the Office of Enforcement Operations 
concerning the petite policy. 
We are examining the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the 
U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. Ultimately, the 
prosecutorial decision making authority within a U.S. Attorney's Office lies with the U.S. 
Attorney. Therefore, to borrow a phrase from the case law, the question we soudit to answer 
was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this 
case. 
As you know, our review of this case is limited, both factually and legally. We have not 
looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to re-
conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch. Furthermore, we did not analyze any issues 
concerning prosecution under federal statutes that do not pertain to child exploitation, such as the 
money laundering statutes, 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012670 
05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX 
0003/006 
Q003 
As was made clear at the outset, we did not review the facts, circumstances, or terms 
included in the plea offer, nor any allegations that individuals involved in the investigation 
engaged in misconduct. Despite that agreement, we note that your letters of April 8, April 28, 
and May 14 focus in large part on accusations of investigative or prosecutorial misconduct. Not 
only do allegations of prosecutorial misconduct fall outside the boundary of our agreed review, 
they also fall outside the authority of the Criminal Division in the first instance. Simply, the 
Criminal Division does not investigate or resolve allegations of professional misconduct by 
federal prosecutors. For these reasons, we do not respond to the portion of those letters that 
discuss alleged misconduct. 
Based on our review of all of these materials, and after careful consideration of the issues, 
we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution 
in this case. We will briefly address each of the issues that you have raised. 
Knowledge of age. Federal child exploitation statutes differ as to whether there must be 
proof that the defendant was aware that the children were under the age of 18. However, even 
for those statutes where knowledge of age is an element of the offense, it is possible to satisfy 
that element with proof that the defendant was deliberately ignorant of facts which would suggest 
that the person was a minor. For that reason, the fact that some of the individuals allegedly lied 
to Mr. Epstein about their age is not dispositive of the issue. While there may be an open factual 
issue as to Mr. Epstein's knowledge, we cannot say that it would be impossible to prove 
knowledge of age for any such charges which require it. Therefore, Mr. Acosta could rightfully 
conclude that this factual issue is best resolved by a jury. 
Travel for the purpose. In the materials you prepared, you suggest that Mr. Epstein 
should not be charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(1,) because his dominant purpose in going 
to Florida was not to engage in illegal sexual activity, but rather to return to one of his residences. 
While we fully understand your argument, we also find that the U.S. Attorney's office has a good 
faith basis fully to develop the facts on this issue and brief the law to permit a court to decide 
whether the law properly reaches such conduct. Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his discretion 
if he decided to pursue such a course of action. 
Intent to engage in the conduct at the time of travel, Based on our review of the facts of 
this case, we respectfully disagree that there is no evidence concerning Mr. Epstein's intent when 
he traveled, and when that intent was formed. Should Mr. Acosta elect to let the case proceed so 
that a jury can resolve this factual issue, he would be within his discretion to do so. 
Use of a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. Much of the materials you 
have prepared and much of the meeting we had focused on 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), specifically your 
contention that Mr. Epstein did not use the phone to coerce anyone to engage in illegal sexual 
activity.. We understand the issue you raise concerning the statutory interpretation. As before, 
however, we cannot agree that there is no evidence that would support a charge under Section 
2422(b), nor can we agree that there is no argument in support of the application of that statute to 
this case. Finally, our assessment is that the application of that statute to these facts would not be 
2 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012671 
05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 11:09 FAX 
g1004/006 
0004 
so novel as to implicate the so-called "clear statement rule," the Ex Post Facto clause, or the Due 
Process clause. As with the other legal issues, Mr. Acosta may elect to proceed with the case. 
Absence of coercion. With respect to 18 § 1591, the alleged absence of the use of 
force, fraud, or coercion is of no moment. The statute does not require the use of force, fraud, 
and coercion against minors. Because of their age, a degree of coercion is presumed. In your 
materials, you note that the statute requires that the minors must be "caused" to engage in a 
commercial sex act, further arguing that the word "cause" suggests that a certain amount of 
undue influence was used. We reject that interpretation, as it would read back into the offense an 
element—coercion—that Congress has expressly excluded. We have successfully prosecuted 
defendants for the commercial sexual exploitation of minors, even when the minors testified that 
not only did they voluntarily engage in the commercial, sex acts, it was their idea to do so. As 
such, Mr. Acosta could properly decide to pursue charges under Section 1591 even if there is no 
evidence of coercion. 
More broadly, a defendant's criminal liability does not hinge on his victim identifying as 
having suffered at his hands. Therefore, a prosecution could proceed, should Mr. Acosta decide 
to do so, even though some of the young women allegedly have said that they do not view 
themselves as victims. 
Witness credibility. As all prosecutors know, there are no perfect witnesses. Particularly 
in cases involving exploited children, as one member of your defense team, Ms. Thacker, surely 
knows from her work at CEOS, it is not uncommon for victim-witnesses to give conflicting 
statements. The prosecutors are in the best position to assess the witness's credibility. Often, the 
prosecutor may decide that the best approach is to present th.e witness, let defense counsel 
explore the credibility problems on cross-examination, and let the jury resolve the issue. Mr. 
Acosta would be within his authority to select that approach, especially when here there are 
multiple, mutually-corroborating witnesses. 
Contradictions and omissions in the search warrant application. We have carefully 
reviewed the factual issues you raise concerning the search warrant application. For a search 
warrant to be suppressed, however, the factual errors must be material, and the officers must not 
have proceeded in good faith. Despite the numerous factual errors you describe, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office could still plausibly argue that the mistakes—whether inadvertent or 
intentional—were not material to the determination that probable cause existed for a search, and 
that the search was in good faith in any event. As such, Mr. Acosta could properly elect to 
defend the search warrant in court rather than forego prosecution. 
Petite 1?olicy: After reviewing the petite policy and consulting with the Office of 
Enforcement Operations ("0E0"), we conclude that the petite policy does not prohibit federal 
prosecution in this case, According to the U.S. Attorney's Manual, the petite policy "applies 
whenever there has been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a 
conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or a dismissal or other termination of 
3 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012672 
05/16/2008 11:17 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 11:09 FAX
IJ 
UO05/006 
005 
the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached." USAIVI 9-2.031(C). Our understanding is 
that the state case is still pending. As such, tehe procedural posture of the state case does not 
implicate the petite policy. 
We recognize that the petite policy could be triggered if the state case concluded after a 
federal indictment was issued but prior to the commencement of any federal trial. Id. However, 
the policy "does not apply ... where the [state] prosecution involved only a minor part of the 
contemplated federal charges." USAM 9-2.031(B). Based on our understanding of the possible 
federal charges and existing state charges, we do not think the petite policy would be an issue 
should federal proceedings take place. 
Federalism and Prosecutorial Discretion. All of the above issues essentially ask whether 
a federal prosecution can proceed. We understand, however, that you also ask whether a federal 
prosecution should proceed, even in the event that all of the elements of a federal offense could 
be proven. On this issue, you raised two arguments: that the conduct at issue here is traditionally 
a state concern because the activity is entirely local, and that the typical prosecution under federal 
child exploitation statutes have different facts than the ones implicated here. You have 
essentially asked us to look into whether a prosecution would so violate federal prosecutorial 
policy that a United States Attorney's Office should not pursue a prosecution. We do not think 
that is the case here for the following reasons. 
Simply, the commercial sexual exploitation of children is a federal concern, even when 
the conduct is local, and regardless of whether the defendant provided the child (the "pimp") or 
paid for the child (the `John"). In your materials, you refer to a letter sent by the Department of 
Justice to Congress in which the Department expresses concern over the expansion of federal 
laws to reach almost all instances of prostitution. In that portion of the letter, the Department 
was expressly referring to a proposed federal law that reach adult prostitution where no force, 
fraud, or coercion was used. Indeed, the point being made in that letter is that the Department's 
efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the 
exploitation of adults through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. As such, there is no 
inconsistency between the position taken in that letter and the federal prosecution of wholly local 
instances of the commercial sexual exploitation of children. 
If Congress wanted to limit the reach of federal statutes only to those who profit from the 
commercial sexual exploitation of children, or only to those who actually traffic children across 
state lines, it could have done so. It did not. Finally, that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not 
look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive. We can say with confidence 
that this case is consistent in principle with other federal prosecutions nationwide. As such, Mr. 
Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might 
involve a novel application of a federal statute. 
Conc/usion. After carefully considering all the factual and legal issues raised, as well as 
the arguments concerning the general propriety ()fa federal case against Mr. Epstein on these 
4 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012673 
05/16/2008 11:17 FAX 
05/16/08 FRI 1110 FAX 
Q5006/006 
12006 
facts, we conclude that federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate. 
While you raise many compelling arguments, we do not see anything that says to us categorically 
that a federal case should not be brought. Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial 
discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr.. glutei 
Sincerely 
3. Oosterbaan 
cc: .AAG Alice S. Fisher 
DAAG Sigal P. Mandelkcr 
U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta 
9:1 
5 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012674 
TAB 39 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012675 
Jay Lefkowitz/New 
York/Kirkland-Ellis 
Sent by: Kristin Andersen/New 
York/Kirkland-Ellis 
12/12/2007 04:19 PM 
To Ami Sheth/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E 
CC Eugene Kornel/New York/Kirkland-Ellis@K&E 
bcc 
Subject Fw: Epstein 
---- Forwarded by Kristin Andersen/New York/Kirkland-Ellis on 12/12/2007 04:19 PM 
Jay Lefkowitz/New 
York/Kirkland-Ellis To "Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" 
11/28/2007 04:29 PM cc "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" 
Subject Re: EpsteinCi 
Dear Jeff: 
I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your letter, given 
the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a productive meeting. I was 
especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day back to work after the 
Thanksgiving Holiday, and yet your demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on 
my hands for days. 
You should know that the first time I learned about Judge Davis's selection of Podhurst 
and Josephsberg, and indeed the first time I ever heard their names, was in our meeting with you 
on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client, and we 
have determined that the selection of Podhurst and Josephsberg are acceptable to us, reserving, of 
course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you have interpreted the section 
2255 portions of the Agreement. 
We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged 
victims. Without a fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to this letter, it is 
completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. Additionally, given 
that the US Attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it 
would be incendiary and inappropriate for your Office to send such a letter. Indeed, because it is 
a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your actions will only 
have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. 
We believe it is entirely unprecedented, and in any event, inappropriate for the Government to be 
the instigator of such lawsuits. 
Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims 
pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, 18 USC section 2255, the relevant statute 
under the Non-Prosecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies, does not have any 
connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. 
Second, the Justice for All Act refers to restitution, and section 2255 is not a restitution statute. 
It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012676 
Jay, 
J.L 10 Li %el V IA 1V111.V,..1..7. .1 10 .7 VIA 13.11%./ VV VVVS 11E411 LJ.L.LV.LVUL FAA./ V 111V Li 1,...,11-11.1.11.1,J11 1111111 101 1.11V 1411051.0 
victims in this matter; however that option was rejected by your Office. Had that option been 
chosen, we would not object to your notifying the alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, 
however, we do not accept your contention that there is a requirement that the government notify 
the alleged victims of a potential civil remedy in this case. 
Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully -- and firmly --
object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims in this matter. Furthermore, if 
a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a right to review and make 
objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims. We also request that if 
your Office believes that it must send a letter to go to the alleged victims, who still have not been 
identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should 
then come from the attorney representative, and not from the Government, to avoid any bias. 
As you know, Judge Starr has requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher 
to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component of the 
Agreement. We are hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week. Accordingly, 
we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims 
until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not 
the wisest manner in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not even enter his plea for 
another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified 
individuals. 
Thanks very much, 
Jay 
"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" 
1"Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS)" 
11/27/2007 01:55 PM 
To "Jay Lefkowitz" 
CC "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" 
Subject Epstein 
Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little under the weather 
yesterday. I hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. 
Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Davis' selection, I'd like to make a few 
observations. First, Guy Lewis has known for some time that Judge Davis was making 
reasonable efforts to secure Aaron Podhurst and Bob Josephsberg for this assignment. In fact, 
when I told you of Judge Davis's selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 2e, 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012677 
you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable, and certainly not surprised, with the 
selection. Podhurst and Josephsberg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team 
including Guy Lewis, Lili Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, and, apparently, Professor Dershowitz who 
said he knew Mr. Josephsberg from law school. Second, Podhurst and Josephsberg have 
long-standing stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine 
how much more vetting needs to be done. 
The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of 
the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by 
the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since 
you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. 
Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection by COB 
tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give 
me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Josephsberg selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously 
send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, 
November 29th. Thanks, 
Jeff 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012678 
TAB 40 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012679 
_ 
**TAX MATTERS- IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance 
with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax 
advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was 
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the 
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code 
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like such advice, 
please contact us.*** 
***Attention: The information contained in this E-mail message 
is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only 
for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this 
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
contact the sender by reply E-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Thank you. 
-----Message from "A. on Fri, ----- 
To: "Lilly 
Subject: Menchel 
Dear Lilly: 
Thank you for your letter of August 2nd regarding your proposal on how to resolve the Epstein 
matter. 
As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal interest 
will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. 
That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum term of 
imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has never agreed 
that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we simply stated that if Mr. 
Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penetentiary, we would be willing to explore a 
federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state resolution. Further, as I made clear in 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012680 
our follow up telephone conversation after the meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was 
never extended or meant as an offer. 
We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of the minor 
girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an initial 
planned charging instrument. 
As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically changed upon the 
return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a 
Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state 
prosecution. 
Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. 
Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a 
non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time, he is not inclined to 
meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Matthew Menchel 
Chief, Criminal Division 
cc: Roy Black 
Gerald Lefcourt 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Jeffrey Sloman 
Andrew Lourie 
A. Marie Villafaila 
Margot Moss, Esq. 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
Espirito Santo Plaza 
1395 Brickell Avenue, 14th Floor 
Miami, FL 33131 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012681 
TAB 41 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012682 
Jay, 
10/31/2007 04:33 PM 
To "Jay Lefkowitz" 
cc 
bcc 
Subject Epstein 
Your understanding from Jack Goldberger conforms to my understanding that Mr. Epstein's plea 
and sentence will take place on the same day. I understand that the plea and sentence will occur 
on or before the January 4th date. 
Jeff 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012683