29–008 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–133 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FORTY-THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA 

JUNE 26, 2013.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 278] 

The Committee on House Administration, having had under consideration an original resolution dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Forty-Third Congressional District of California, report the same to the House with the 

recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN THE FORTY-THIRD

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Committee on House Administration, having had under consideration an original resolution dismissing the election contest 

against Maxine Waters, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

On June 3, 2013, by a voice vote, a quorum being present, the 

Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution favorably to 

the House 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), the Committee states that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under House Rule X, clause 

2(b)(1), are incorporated into the general discussion section of this 

report. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 2 U.S.C. § 381(3). 

2 Even if this contest were filed by Project Hurt founder Dwayne Anderson in his individual 

capacity, because of the other defects of the filing detailed in this report the Committee still 

would not have entertained it. 3 2 U.S.C. § 382(a). 

STATEMENT OF BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED ITEMS

The resolution does not provide new budget authority, new 

spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under 

House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2), and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is not required. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3), the Committee states, with respect to H. Res. 278, that the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office did not submit a cost estimate and 

comparison under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 27, 2013, Project Hurt filed a Notice of Contest with 

the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the Forty-Third Congressional District. Project Hurt did not run for office as part of the 

November 6, 2012 election. The candidate who won the election for 

the Forty-Third Congressional District of California was incumbent 

Democrat Maxine Waters (‘‘Contestee’’). 

BASIS OF CONTEST

In the Notice of Contest, Project Hurt gives no basis to contest 

the outcome of the election. The organization does not allege any 

irregularity in the voting process. No claims have been made of 

fraud or illegality in the voter registration, vote casting, vote counting, or vote reporting. Nowhere in the filing does the organization 

claim the results of the election were inaccurate. 

The crux of Project Hurt’s accusations against Congresswoman 

Waters is that she failed to respond to Project Hurt’s grievances 

sent to the Congresswoman about allegedly impeachable offenses 

by President Obama. Project Hurt now asserts that, in doing so, 

Congresswoman Waters is complicit in those ‘‘massive criminal activities.’’ Project Hurt asserts that those criminal activities prevented the organization from recruiting candidates to run for office. 

STANDING

Under the requirements of the FCEA, to be a valid Contestant 

the contesting party must be an individual.1 The notice of contest 

in this case was filed by Project Hurt, an organization claiming to 

be a registered 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. Accordingly, 

Project Hurt does not meet the definition of Contestant under the 

FCEA and is not authorized to file a contest.2

However, even if Project Hurt fit the definition of Contestant 

under the act, to have standing under the FCEA a Contestant must 

have been a candidate for election to the House of Representatives 

in the last preceding election and claim a right to the Contestee’s 

seat.3 Project Hurt was not a candidate in the Forty-Third ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:39 Jun 27, 2013 Jkt 029008 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR133.XXX HR133

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

4 2 U.S.C. § 382(a). 

5 U.S. Const. art. I, § 5. 

6 2 U.S.C. § 382. 

7See, e.g., Pierce v. Pursell, H. Rep. 95–245 (1977). 

8 Anderson v. Rose, H. Rep. 104–852 (1996). 

gressional District of California for the November 6, 2012, election, 

and Project Hurt does not claim a right to the office. 

Project Hurt is not a valid Contestant under the statute, was not 

a candidate in the last preceding election, and does not claim a 

right to office. Therefore, Project Hurt does not have standing to 

pursue a contest. 

TIMING/NOTICE

The FCEA requires that any person seeking to contest the election of a Member of the House of Representatives file notice of his 

or her intent to contest the election within thirty days after the result has been certified.4 The Secretary of State from the State of 

California certified the election on December 14, 2012. Project Hurt 

filed the Notice of Contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives on March 27, 2013, 103 days past the certification 

date. 

The Notice of Contest was not timely and therefore should not 

be considered. 

STANDARD FOR GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

The House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested 

power to judge its own elections.5

The FCEA sets forth procedures under which a Contestant may 

bring a contest to the House of Representatives. Under the FCEA, 

it is not sufficient for a Contestant merely to allege irregularities 

or fraud in an election. The Contestant must claim a right to the 

office.6 The Contestant must support this claim with specific credible allegations of irregularity or fraud that, if proven true, would 

entitle the Contestant to the office.7 Unless a Contestant credibly 

claims in his Notice of Contest a right to the office, the House of 

Representatives will dismiss the Contest.8

ANALYSIS

Project Hurt is not a valid Contestant under the statute. Additionally, Project Hurt was not a candidate for office in the preceding election, and did not claim a right to office. Project Hurt did 

not timely file the contest or make any claim of irregularity or 

fraud in the election of the Congresswoman from the Forty-Third 

Congressional District of California. Project Hurt’s claims against 

Congresswoman Waters do not in any way speak to whether or not 

she was validly elected. They are outside the scope of the FCEA, 

and outside the Committee on House Administration’s jurisdiction. 

All of these statements would be equally true had Dwayne Anderson filed the contest in his individual capacity. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Committee therefore concludes that this contest should be dismissed. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(4) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER ROBERT A. 

BRADY, REP. ZOE LOFGREN AND REP. JUAN VARGAS 

We reluctantly acquiesced in the majority’s desire to originate 

privileged resolutions to dismiss this ‘‘election contest’’ against Rep. 

Maxine Waters, as well as the identical one against Rep. Steve 

Cohen. These Members appear to have been chosen essentially at 

random by the ‘‘contestant.’’ (Cover letter by the Clerk of the House 

and ‘‘Notice of Contested Election’’ appear in the Appendix following 

these views) 

There is nothing in the House rules which requires the Committee, or the House, to address a matter which is not a proper 

election contest. Sections 5.1 (p. 348), 6.6 (p. 355), 19.6 (p. 389) and 

53.2 (pages 539–542) of volume 2 of Deschler’s Precedents of the 

U.S. House of Representatives discuss In re Plunkett, a 1945 contest 

initiated by a non-candidate purporting to challenge the elections 

of 79 Members. According to these citations, ‘‘the committee took 

no action on the matter, it appearing that the contestant, not being 

a candidate in the disputed election, was not qualified to initiate 

the proceedings.’’ 

There is no record the committee submitted a report in this case 

or that the House acted in any way upon the contest. 

In the 1941 contest, Miller v. Kirwan, Deschler’s sec. 51.1, p. 525, 

the Majority Leader brought a resolution to the floor summarily 

dismissing the case without committee action, on the grounds that 

Miller had not been a general election candidate and was not competent to bring a contest for the seat. 

The Committee on House Administration, its predecessor panels 

and the House have acted in the past to dismiss meritless and frivolous contests, but these new cases should prod the Committee to 

adopt clearer standards before wasting either our own time or that 

of the House. The report outlines the reasons why this is not a 

proper election contest, yet instead of drawing the conclusion that 

it did not merit a response, the majority presses ahead anyway to 

present a resolution to the House. 

The majority would contend that the Committee must act on everything presented to it in the guise of an election contest, in order 

to ensure that no legitimate future challenge is unfairly buried by 

a partisan majority. However, our role as elected Members of the 

House is to make choices, to review issues on behalf of the House, 

and to make recommendations, or take action, or not, as appropriate. Even if the Committee were to make an egregious error in 

failing to consider a particular contest, the matter could still be 

raised independently on the Floor by any Member as a question of 

the privileges of the House pursuant to Rule IX. 

In the instant case, the ‘‘contestant’’ did not run against the incumbent Member and is not even a person, being described as 

‘‘Project Hurt,’’ a name of a purported organization linked to a conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:39 Jun 27, 2013 Jkt 029008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR133.XXX HR133

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

victed felon, Dwayne Anderson, incarcerated at Hardeman County 

Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee. No allegations were 

made disputing the validity of Rep. Waters’ election. As stated in 

the draft report presented at the House Administration Committee 

markup of June 4, 2013, this matter gives no basis to contest the 

outcome of her election, does not meet the definition of contestant 

under the FCEA, and was filed too late. Notably, the report states, 

relating to the allegations: ‘‘They are outside the scope of the FCEA 

and outside the Committee on House Administration’s jurisdiction.’’ 

The report appears to raise doubts that there was anything before the Members which could be acted upon in the form of a report 

or resolution, which the Committee claims to be privileged under 

Rule X, clause 1(k)(12) and clause 5(a)(3) of Rule XIII, relating to 

the Committee’s authority to file privileged reports at any time on 

contested elections. 

The fact that a person, or entity, does not like a particular Member or Members of the House should not qualify as an election contest. In the Committee’s logic, an otherwise blank sheet of paper 

stating, as this one does, that Member X is ‘‘hereby contested’’ 

could set in motion an inexorable chain of events requiring a vote 

by and consuming the time of the House. This should not be the 

case. 

We are ready to work with the majority to develop standards to 

facilitate consideration of proper election contests. Perhaps those 

which are blatantly frivolous could be disposed of through adoption 

of internal committee resolutions describing, for the historical 

record, the reasons for such action. These would not require any action by the House. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(6) 

APPENDIX 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 HR133.001

The Honorable Candice S. Miller 

The Honorable Robert A. Brady 

Committee on House Administration 

1309 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

2013 

Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brady: 

COITespOlldence captioned "Notice of Contested Election" received 

2013. 

With best wishes, I am 

cc: 

KLHlkb 

founder and Aoderson. The 

in the Office mail on April!, 

Sincerely, 

Karen L. Haas 

Clerk of the House 
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 HR133.002

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OFFICE OF TIm CLERK 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

IN RE: PROJECT JruRT. CONTESTANT. 

NOTICE OF CONTESTED ELECTION 

The contestant, Prqject Hurt. by and through its founder and representative, 

DwlOOle Anderson. hereby:files with the Clerk's office of the United States House of 

Representatives, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 381, the instant "Notice of Contested Elections" as 

described herein. 

Itnportant to note: The representative of Project Hurt has, as of March 8, 2013, 

learned, through a feDow inmate at his current place of confinement, Hardeman County 

Correctional Facility (RCCF), in Whiteville, TN., of Project Hurt's right to contest the 

elections described herein within thirty (30) days after the result of such elections. 

Therefore, Project Hurt could not haw timely file the instant Notice of Contested Election 

due the its named representative being hindered from obtaining such vital information by 

employees of the Shelby County Jail in Memphis, TN., employees at his said cum:nt place 

of confinement, and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

Therefore, a hearing, if necessary, is requested to present evidence with regard to 

the representative being willfully hindered in this matter to obtain information to contest 

elections. 

GROUNDS FOR CONTESTED ELECTION 

On July 3, 2012, Project Hurt filed with the Federal Election Commission a 

"Request for an Advisoty Opinion," (AO Request), pursuant to 2 U.S.C.A. 437f (a)(I), 

within which sought to secure Ballot Access for itself for Federal Office in order to field a 

_ of federal candidates and to ~ the individuals to run for federal office, that 

being the 2012 Presi4cntial Election as an Independent. The AO request demonstrated that 

Project Hurt is "Political Organization" whose aim is at investigating and exposing 

corruption, fraud, misconduct, among other unethical and criminal activities in both private 

and public institutions, and also pointed out that in, February, 2011, representative 

Anderson founded Project Hurt for the aforesaid reasons and wrote to the elerlc's office of 

the United States House of Representatives requesting all pertinent documents for properly 

establishing Project Hurt as a registered 501<c)(3) not-for-profit organization. or for the 

clerlc to properly convey the said request to the appropriate federal agency to provide 

representative Anderson with the 501(c)(3) documents. However, representative Anderson 

received no response from the clerlc of the House of Representatives. The AO request 

I 
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 HR133.003

asked the FEC whether Project Hurt would be considered a "political committee" before 

the conclusion of iI5 online convennon to convince individuals to run in the 2012 

presiden1ia1 election. 

By letter dated August 31, 2012, the Acting Associate General Counsel (Ge) of the 

FEe, Kevin Deely, purported that the AO request was responded to on July 20, 2012, but, 

however, the letter af response was "returned to them as undeliverable," but produced no 

evidence to substantiate such. The purported letter in response states, in pertinent part: 

"Dear Mr, Anderson: 

This responds to your letter received on July 11, 2012, which requests an advisory 

opinion on behalf of Project Hurt, concerning application of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1911, as amended the (the "ACT"), and Commission regulations to 

Project Hurt's status as a political committee. 

The requirements for political committee status are spelled out in the Act and 

Commission regulations. (citing 2 U.S.C. 431(4); 11 C.F.R. 1oo.S). Your letter does not 

provide any information by which the Commission could detennine whether Project Hurt 

has fulfilled the requirements for political committee status. Accordingl.y, this office has 

detennined that your request does not qualify as a complete advisoty opinion request. 

(citing 11 .C.F.R. 112. 1 (c)." 

On September 11, 2012, representative Anderson filed with the FEC an 

"Administrative ~" believing such proceeding to be proper due to the FEC failure to 

provide representative Anderson with the Rules promulgated by the FEC upon his requests 

for such, within which pointed out that Ge Deely has misconstrued Project Hurt's AO 

request by finding that Prqject Hurt is a poJ:ilical committee, because Project Hurt had not 

officiaRy chose candidates to run in the 2012 presidential election, but was fielding a slate 

to convince individuals to run for the said federal office. The FEC failed to respond to the 

administrative appeal's contents or whether the admistrative appeal was proper. 

On September 20, 2012, representative Anderson filed with the FEC a "Complaint 

of Criminal Conduct" against the attorney the FEC, Ruth Hetlizer, for concealing a 

"Complaint for Viola1ion of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971" filed by 

representative Anderson against the Senior Official of the United States Department of 

Justice for covering up representative Anderson's "Request for a Criminal Inyestigation." 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 591(e). into the following: 

(1) The cover up of representative Anderson's "Petition for Impeachment" by the 

president of the United States, Barack Obama, against a host of criminal acts committed by 

a host of federal disblet court and court of appeals judges, and federal elected and 

appointed officials in connection with Anderson's civil matters, including a district court 

judge nominated by president Obama, Bemice B. Donald, to :fi11 a vacant seat on the 

United States Court af Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; 

(1) The cover up of representative Anderson's "Request for a Criminal 

Investigation" by United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, into the cover up of 

2 
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 HR133.004

Anderson's "Request for a Criminal Investigation" by the Memphis United States District 

Attorney General, Edward L. Stanton, m. into the criminal acts committed, under federal 

llnY, by Memphis Police Officers, and Tennessee Court Officers in connection with 

Anderson's arrest on fabricated criminal offenses, and prosecution of such, for filing civil 

lawsuits against the City of Memphis and Shelby County officers, which such request for a 

criminal investigaUon included the Shelby Coun1;y Criminal Court Judge who was presiding 

over the Anderson's aforesaid fabricated criminal offenses, John T. Fowlkes. Jr., and the 

same judge that president Obama has nominated to fill the vacant seat on the Memphis 

Federal Court previously held by the aforesaid nominee of president Obama, judge 

Donald, and after president Obama had received from Anderson a "Request for a Criminal 

Investigation" into judge Fowlkes' federal crimes committed in connection with 

Anderson's aforesaid fabricated criminal matter, while acting in concert with the Shelby 

County Dislrict Attorney Genera), Amy P. Weirich. such as, refusing to rule on 

Anderson's unQWOSCd "Motion to Dismiss Indictments," denying other unopposed 

motions, and unlawfuih' intercepting, ruling on, and denying Anderson's "Motion to 

Convene a Special Grand Jury," to prevent the Shelby County Grand JUlY from properly 

inquiring into their criminal acts and returning ''Presentments'' crimina1ly charging them; 

and 

(3) The cover up of Anderson's "Request for a Criminal investigation" filed, 

respectively, with United States House of Representatives, Maxine Waters. and ~ 

Cohen. both requests expounding the above described acts of president Obama's cover up 

of impeachable offenses and federal crimes of eXlreme public importance. 

Important to note: On April 4, 2012, representative Anderson filed with the 

Chairperson of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Senate, and U.S. 

Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, a ''Request to Attend Confinnation Hearing of 

Judge Jolm T. Fowlkes. Jr.," to present cruicial evidence in opposition to ther extemely 

corrupt and unfit judge Fowlkes. The request was wilfully concealed by the Chairperson of 

the Judiciary Committee and senators Alexander and Corker to criminally allow judge 

Fowlkes to be con:fumed. 

The Complaint for Violation of the FcdcraJ Election Campaign Act also 

demonstrated that the aforesaid criminal investigation request to the Department of Justice 

senior official demonstrated how he or she must conduct a pre1iminary inves1igation into 

such roaujye criminal ac1M.ti.es involving cover up of federal crimes committed by 

president Obama, and representatives Waters and Cohen, clearly for the purpose of 

allowing the complained of to remain as judicial and executive officers, federal and state, to 

support their campaign for re-election, and other political agendas. 

The complaint pointed out to the FEC that 2 U.S.C. 438a. • in pertinent part, reads: 

"Any Federal Executive Agency receiving election-related infonnation which that 

agency is required by law to publicly disclose shall cooperate and coordinate with the 

Federal Election Commission to make such report available through, or for the posting on, 

the web-site of the Federal Election Commission," and 

3 
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 HR133.005

that the Department of Justice senior official was presented with sufficient documentary 

evidence of ~ quid pro quo conuption of those named in the criminal investigation 

request, and that that official's cover up of such further prevented the ewsure of; by 

outrightly refusing to investigate, an actual quid pro quo cotTllption "inherent in" 

contributions made directly to, contributions made at the express behest of; and 

expenditures made in coordination with, president Obama, and representatives Waters and 

Cohen, in connection with this matter, to prevent exposure of such massive cOtTllpUon 

during their campaign for re-election. while simultaneously deceiving the public of such 

vital and entitled information. and permitting Anderson to be torture, receive inhumane 

treatment and false imprisonment and wrongly convicted. which such treatment and 

criminal acts were committed by judge Fowlkes, while acting in concert with Shelby 

County District Attorney Weirich, and prosecutors of her office, also while acting in 

concert with president Obama, representatives Waters and Cohen, U.S. Attorney General 

Holder, and u.s. District Attorney General Stanton of Memphis. The aforesaid criminal 

complaint against attorney Heilizer was concealed. 

Further, on August 24, 2012, representative Anderson filed with the FEC a 

"Complaint for Violation of the Fdqal Election Campaiagn Act of 1971" within which 

demonstrated that, "on Agust 10, 2012, a Memphis attorney, Steffen G. Schreiner, was 

allowed access to Anderson by judge Fowlkes in an unlawful manner in order to offer 

Anderson one thousand doBars (51,000), from representative Cohen, for Anderson to 

relinguish his then herein mentioned AO Request, and other 1hings filed against 

representatives Cohen and Waters, president Obama, and District Attorney Weirich, and 

that Anderson will received four (4) more thousand dollars ($4,000) once he relinguished 

such, and attorney Schreiner concluded with a threat of bodily harm to Anderson if he 

(Anderson) continued with such. BasicaJly a death threat. Judge Fowles relendess 

violations of Anderson constitutional rights persist whereby that judge was wen aware that 

Anderson had long-rejected attorney Schreiner and fu1l.y exercised his rights to represent 

himself in his criminal proceeding. but disregarded such to unlaw:fuIty allow attorney 

Schreiner's access to Anderson to offer the said bribe. Such conduct of judge Fowlkes was 

vigorously argued to the Tennessee Supreme Court and Tennessee Court of Criminal 

Appeals (Western Division), prior to and after the bribe and death threats, but was to DO 

avail. Nevertheless, attorney Heilizer willfully concealed the complaint to criminally aid in 

the re-election of those herein named. Representative Anderson is currently attempting to 

be rightfully heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on his 

"Petition for Review," pW'SUant to 2 U,S.C. 437(g)(8XA), of his AO Request and 

Complaints for Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which such was 

criminally obstructed by the Clerk of that court resulting in the filing of "Complaint of 

Judicial Misconduct,," by Anderson. against the Chief Judge of that Court tor allowing the 

Clerk to prevent such from being filed during the aforesaid election. 

Due to GC Deely and attorney Heilizer's insidious and criminal activities as 

described herein, such unfairly deprived Project Hurt from rightfully securing ~ 

Access to field a slate of candidates to corryjnce the individuals to run in the 2012 

Presidential Election as an. Jnde,pendent. deprived such individuals of voters and possibly 

election to the office of the United States President, and wilfully and criminally prevented 

the exposure of an actual Quid pro quo coIIQPtion involving those herein named during 

their campaign for re-election. 

4 
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 15 HR133.006

Based upon the foregoing. president Obama, and representatives Waters and 

Cohen elections are hereby contested, and that pursuant to 2 US.C. 382lb), an answer 

hereto must be sevred upon the contestant Project Hurt, to representative Anderson, under 

section 383 of this titled within thirty (30) days after such notice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

.a,~ anc-&;.....<"$M 

DWA ANDERSON#124529 

HCCF 

P.O.BOXS49 

WHITEVILLE, TN. 38075 

I, Dwayne Anderson. the representative and founder of Project Hutl, hereby affinn that 

the true and exact copies of the foregoing has been sent on this 19th day of MARCH. 

2013, VIA U.S. Mail to; 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OFFICE OF TIlE CLERK 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

STEVE COHEN 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAXINE WATERS 

US. REPRESENTATIVE 

U.S. HOUSE OFREPRESENATATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

BARACK OBAMA 

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT 

1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW 

1st FLOOR WEST WING 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500 

5 
13 

ROBERT A. BRADY. ZOE LOFGREN. JUAN VARGAS. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS