DOCSLIB.ORG

List by State 2-27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2012 Political Contributions Report March 2013 A Message from Rich Bagger, Chairman, Celgene PAC I am pleased to share Celgene’s first political contributions report, which includes a listing of candidates and political committees supported by either the Celgene Corporation Political Action Committee (Celgene PAC) or Celgene Corporation during 2012. Beginning this year, we will issue political contribution reports twice a year, during the quarter following the end of each half of the year. Celgene established the Celgene PAC in March 2012. The Celgene PAC is a volunteer, nonpartisan, employee-run organization that provides opportunities for eligible employees to participate in the American political process. The Celgene PAC supports and contributes to candidates from both political parties who share our commitment to these core principles of access and innovation in health care: • Expanding access to medicines through a competitive marketplace and a regulatory environment in which innovation can flourish • Protecting the patient-physician relationship and ensuring patient access to innovative treatments • Recognizing the important role of biopharmaceutical companies and their employees in the ecosystem of innovation in health care The Celgene PAC Board of Directors, which is comprised of Celgene employees, meets monthly to consider recommendations for PAC support and approve all contributions to candidates and political committees. The Celgene PAC Board also reviews and approves any political contributions made by Celgene Corporation in states and to entities where contributions with corporate funds are permitted. During 2012, we supported 34 candidates from both political parties at the Federal and State levels. I hope you will take a few moments to review this report and see which candidates the Celgene PAC supported in your state. This year, it will be more important than ever for us to positively and proactively engage elected officials to demonstrate the importance of biomedical innovation and patient access in health care. I am confident that together, we can have a positive impact on the environment for innovation and access on behalf of the patients we serve. Thank you for your support, Rich Bagger Chairman, Celgene PAC 2 Celgene Corporation Political Action Committee Board of Directors CHAIRMAN Rich Bagger Senior Vice President Corporate Affairs & Strategic Market Access TREASURER Richard Girards Senior Corporate Counsel Mark Alles Executive Vice President Global Head Hematology & Oncology Greg Chesmore Senior Director State Government Relations Anne Marie Finley Vice President Federal Government Relations Katherine Kalin Corporate Vice President Corporate Strategy Perry Karsen Executive Vice President Chief Operations Officer 3 PARTY CORPORATE PAC CALIFORNIA US SENATE Sen. Diane Feinstein* D $2,000.00 US HOUSE Rep. Doris Matsui D $1,500.00 Rep. Susan Davis D $1,000.00 Rep. Anna Eshoo D $1,000.00 Rep. Lois Capps D $1,000.00 Rep. Brian Bilbray* R $1,000.00 DELAWARE STATE SENATE Sen. Patricia Blevins D $600.00 Sen. Deborah Hudson R $600.00 ILLINOIS STATE SENATE Sen. Christine Radogno R $500.00 STATE HOUSE Rep. Patti Bellock R $1,000.00 Rep. Ann Williams D $500.00 INDIANA STATE HOUSE Rep. Peggy Welch D $750.00 KANSAS US HOUSE Rep. Kevin Yoder* R $1,000.00 MICHIGAN US HOUSE Rep. Fred Upton R $1,500.00 MISSOURI STATE SENATE Sen. Tom Dempsey R $300.00 Sen. Mike Parson R $300.00 STATE HOUSE Rep. Caleb Jones R $250.00 Rep. Jeanie Riddle R $250.00 *Represents Celgene Facility 1 PARTY CORPORATE PAC NEW JERSEY US SENATE Sen. Robert Menendez* D $2,000.00 US HOUSE Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen* R $1,000.00 Rep. Scott Garrett R $1,000.00 Rep. Rush Holt D $1,000.00 Rep. Leonard Lance* R $2,500.00 Rep. Frank Pallone D $1,000.00 Rep. Bill Pascrell D $1,000.00 Rep. Chris Smith R $1,000.00 NEW YORK US HOUSE Rep. Anne Marie Buerkle R $1,000.00 Rep. Nan Hayworth R $1,000.00 NORTH CAROLINA US SENATE Sen. Kay Hagan D $1,000.00 OHIO US HOUSE Rep. Jim Jordan R $1,000.00 PENNSYLVANIA US HOUSE Rep. Joe Pitts R $2,500.00 SOUTH DAKOTA STATE HOUSE Rep. Brian Gosch R $250.00 UTAH US SENATE Sen. Orin Hatch R $1,000.00 *Represents Celgene Facility 2 PARTY CORPORATE PAC VIRGINA US HOUSE ERICPAC (Rep. Eric Cantor) R $2,500.00 WASHINGTON GOVERNOR Robert McKenna R $1,000.00 OTHER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION D $35,000.00 REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION R $35,000.00 DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE D $12,000.00 REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE R $15,000.00 "Corporate" column includes political contributions by Celgene Corporation in states and to entities where corporate contributions are permitted. "PAC" column includes political contributions by the Celgene Corporation Political Action Committee. *Represents Celgene Facility 3.
Recommended publications
  • Qualcomm Incorporated

    Qualcomm Incorporated

    QUALCOMM INCORPORATED DISCLOSURES UNDER POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES POLICY FISCAL YEAR 2012 (SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2012) (AMOUNTS PAID IN FISCAL YEAR 2012) STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS CALIFORNIA AMOUNT BILL BERRYHILL FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 BOB BLUMENFIELD FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 BOB WIECKOWSKI FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 BRIAN JONES FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 BUCHANAN FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 CALIFORNIANS FOR JOBS AND A STRONG ECONOMY $ 5,000 CANELLA FOR SENATE 2014 $ 2,000 CAROL LIU FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 COMPREHENSIVE PENSION REFORM FOR SAN DIEGO $ 30,000 CONNIE CONWAY FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 2,000 DE SAULNIER FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 DR. ED HERNANDEZ, O.D. DEMOCRAT FOR SENATE 2014 $ 1,000 HARKEY FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 JEAN FULLER FOR SENATE 2014 $ 1,000 JOHN A. PEREZ FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 3,000 KEVIN DE LEON FOR SENATE 2014 $ 1,000 MANUEL PEREZ FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 MARTY BLOCK FOR STATE SENATE 2012 $ 2,000 NESTANDE FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 PEREA FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 PLESCIA FOR SENATE 2012 $ 2,000 REELECT BILL EMMERSON FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 RUBIO FOR STATE SENATE 2014 $ 1,000 STEINBERG FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 2018 $ 3,000 TAX FIGHTERS FOR ANDERSON SENATE 2014 $ 1,000 TAXPAYERS FOR BOB HUFF FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 TECHAMERICA PAC $ 5,000 TOM HARMAN FOR BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2014 $ 1,000 TONI ATKINS FOR STATE ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 2,000 VALADAO FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 WAGNER FOR ASSEMBLY 2012 $ 1,000 WOLK FOR SENATE 2012 $ 1,000 $ 78,000 OTHER STATES AMOUNT NONE $ - FEDERAL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS (QPAC) AMOUNT ALLYSON SCHWARTZ FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 BASS VICTORY COMMITTEE $ 1,000 BECERRA FOR CONGRESS $ 1,000 BILL NELSON FOR US SENATE $ 1,000 BOB CASEY FOR SENATE INC.
  • Vital Statistics on Congress 2001-2002

    Vital Statistics on Congress 2001-2002

    Vital Statistics on Congress 2001-2002 Vital Statistics on Congress 2001-2002 NormanJ. Ornstein American Enterprise Institute Thomas E. Mann Brookings Institution Michael J. Malbin State University of New York at Albany The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. 2002 Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 152.00 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 172.14. To order call toll free 1-800-462.-642.0 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2.0036 or call 1-800-862.-5801. Available in the United States from the AEI Press, do Publisher Resources Inc., 1224 Heil Quaker Blvd., P O. Box 7001, La Vergne, TN 37086-7001. To order, call toll free: 1-800-937-5557. Distributed outside the United States by arrangement with Eurospan, 3 Henrietta Street, London WC2E 8LU, England. ISBN 0-8447-4167-1 (cloth: alk. paper) ISBN 0-8447-4168-X (pbk.: alk. paper) 13579108642 © 2002 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Printed in the United States ofAmerica Contents List of Figures and Tables vii Preface ............................................
  • 1 Redistricting and Congressional Control Following the 2012 Election

    1 Redistricting and Congressional Control Following the 2012 Election

    Redistricting and Congressional Control Following the 2012 Election By Sundeep Iyer On Election Day, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives. While two Congressional races remain undecided as of November 20, it appears that Democrats may have picked up about eight seats during the 2012 election,1 falling well short of the 25 seats Democrats needed to take back control of the House. Before the election, the Brennan Center estimated that redistricting would allow Republicans to maintain long-term control of 11 more seats in the House than they would have under the previous district lines.2 Now that the election is complete, it is worth re-examining the influence of redistricting on the results of the 2012 election. This brief assesses how the new district lines affected the partisan balance of power in the House. The report is the prologue to more extensive analyses, which will examine other aspects of redistricting, including the fairness of the process and its effect on minority representation, among others. Based on our initial analysis of the 2012 election, several important trends emerge: • Redistricting may have changed which party won the election in at least 25 House districts. Because of redistricting, it is likely that the GOP won about six more seats overall in 2012 than they would have under the old district lines. • Where Republicans controlled redistricting, the GOP likely won 11 more seats than they would have under the old district lines, including five seats previously held by Democrats. Democrats also used redistricting to their advantage, but Republicans redrew the lines for four times as many districts as Democrats.
  • ELECTION the FIRST ’00: TAKE the Rhodes Cook Letter

    ELECTION the FIRST ’00: TAKE the Rhodes Cook Letter

    ELECTION THE FIRST ’00: TAKE The Rhodes Cook Letter December 2000 The Rhodes Cook Letter DECEMBER 2000 / VOL. 1, NO. 5 Contents The 2000 Election: The Perfect Storm. 3 The 2000 Presidential Election: Too Close to Call. 4 The Bushes, the GOP and the South: The Electoral Vote since 1988 . 7 The 2000 Senate Results: Even-Steven. 8 The 2000 House Elections: Not All They Were Pumped Up to Be. 11 The 2000 Gubernatorial Elections: A Second Glance . 14 The Presidential Vote Count . 16 Subscription Page . 17 CORRECTION In Issue 4 of The Rhodes Cook Letter, pp. 7 and 8 should read that John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representatives and not by electoral vote. The Rhodes Cook Letter is published periodically by Rhodes Cook. Web: rhodescook.com. E-mail: An individual subscription for six issues is $99; [email protected]. All contents are copy- for an institution, $249. Make checks payable right ©2000 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” and send them, is welcome with attribution, though the author along with your e-mail address, to P.O. Box 574, retains full copyright over the material con- Annandale, VA, 22003. tained herein. Design by Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. Web: landslidedesign.com. 2 The Rhodes Cook Letter • December 2000 The 2000 Election The Perfect Storm By Rhodes Cook he nationwide vote Nov. 7 may ultimately be remembered as the political equivalent of “the Tperfect storm” – the confluence of powerful forces that has created one of the most evenly divided elections, for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, in American history.
  • How Do SMD Redistricting Institutions Affect Partisan Disproportionality

    How Do SMD Redistricting Institutions Affect Partisan Disproportionality

    Katz 1 How do SMD redistricting institutions affect Partisan Disproportionality, Incumbency Re-election and Voter Turnout? Austin Katz Senior Undergraduate Honors Thesis Under the advisement of Professor Kaare Strøm University of California, San Diego March 2021 Katz 2 Table of Contents: Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………3 Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………4 Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………..13 2.1 Electoral Systems and Redistricting . ...13 2.2 Single-member districts (SMD) . ……...14 2.3 Partisan Disproportionality. ……….16 2.4 Incumbency Re-election. …………….18 2.5 Voter Turnout………………………………………………………….21 2.6 Partisan Gerrymandering. ……………...23 2.7 Overview of Electoral Institutions . .25 2.7.1 General American . 25 2.7.2 California. 26 2.7.3 Arizona. .. 26 2.7.4 Texas. ……27 2.7.5 Wisconsin. .28 2.7.6 England. ..28 2.7.7 France . ….30 Chapter 3: Theory/Hypotheses …………………………………………………………34 Chapter 4: Research Design …………………………………………………………….45 Chapter 5: Findings/Discussion ………………………………………………………...54 Chapter 6: Analysis of California and Arizona’s independent commissions………...70 Chapter 7: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...86 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………….91 Works cited……………………………………………………………………………….92 Katz 3 Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Professor Nichter, Professor Lake, and Alex for their work putting on the Senior Honors Seminar this year. I have thoroughly enjoyed the seminar and thank them for their extensive work. I’d also like to congratulate my fellow honors students for completing their theses. Specifically, I would like to thank Jack, Emily, and Kim for being great pals and proofreaders. I am so proud to a part of such an amazing group of students. I am confident each and every one of you will achieve great success.
  • UC Berkeley California Journal of Politics and Policy

    UC Berkeley California Journal of Politics and Policy

    UC Berkeley California Journal of Politics and Policy Title The Impact of GOTV Depends Upon Campaign Context: A Field Experiment in the 2014 California Primary Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3sz6n1xg Journal California Journal of Politics and Policy, 9(2) Authors Hughes, D. Alex Levitt, Justin Hill, Seth J. et al. Publication Date 2017 DOI 10.5070/P2cjpp9234854 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Impact of GOTV Depends Upon Campaign Context: A Field Experiment in the 2014 California Primary D. Alex Hughes, Justin Levitt, Seth J. Hill, and Thad Kousser University of California, San Diego Abstract Millions of California voters regularly turn out in November but abstain from primary elec- tions. A randomized Get Out the Vote experiment conducted in the state’s 2014 primary contest shows that this dormant electorate can be mobilized if campaigns target these unlikely voters. Here, we extend these findings to examine whether the electoral context of the district shapes the effectiveness of a primary mobilization effort. To do so, we develop two conceptualizations of campaign context. The first is based on a district’s typical level of competitiveness. The second looks at total spending levels in the current campaign. Theories of voter information processing predict differential responsiveness by voters to mobilization efforts in these different contexts. To test these predictions, we analyze a field experiment that sends direct mail to 149,596 regis- tered low-propensity California voters. Consistent with theory, we find that voter mobilization mailings have different effects in these two distinct contexts.
  • Utilitywatch

    Utilitywatch

    fter more than two years of discus- UTILITYWATCH sions, hearings, back room negotia- Ations and political maneuvering, Congress recently took its first official action on comprehensive legislation to restructure the electric utility industry in the United States. Electricity The IBEW played a major part in the process, Restructuring lobbying hard for an amendment to protect utility workers and consumers and against pro- Bill Clears visions that would cripple utility companies First Hurdle that employ IBEW members from competing —Barely in open electricity markets. On October 27, 1999, the Energy and Power Subcommittee Battle Continues in of the U.S. House of Representatives voted 17-11 to send H.R. House and Senate 2944, the Energy Competition and Reliability Act, to the full Commerce Committee. Energy and Power is a subgroup of the as IBEW Fights Commerce Committee. On a tie vote of 13-13, the subcommittee for Worker and failed to pass an IBEW-backed amendment to H.R. 2944 that Consumer would have provided worker and consumer protections. The IBEW has opposed the concept of a federal mandate on Protections states to deregulate their electricity markets, believing that such choices are best left to decision makers in the individual states who best know the needs of their communities. Nevertheless, the union wanted Congress to go on record supporting mea- sures that guarantee safety, reliability and provisions to protect the rights of workers. The amendment, introduced by Represen- tatives Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and John Shimkus (R-IL),
  • U.S.-Mexico Policy Bulletin

    U.S.-Mexico Policy Bulletin

    U.S.-Mexico Policy Bulletin Issue 8 • December 2006 Immigration and the 2006 Elections David R.Ayón Illegal immigration is a recurring and familiar policy included provisions for guest workers and “earned legal- issue, but it took an especially high-profile turn on the ization” for undocumented migrants. Refusing to con- national stage this election year.An unprecedented pol- fer to reconcile the two bills, however, House icy battle developed as millions of migrants—mainly Republicans countered by reaffirming their “no Mexican and largely undocumented—marched in the amnesty” stance in several summer field hearings, and spring to protest a strong “enforcement-only” bill passed in the final stretch of the fall campaign pushed through by the House of Representatives in late 2005. an unfunded measure to reinforce the Mexican border President Bush weighed in with a nationally televised with 700 miles of triple fencing. Finally,the November David R. Ayón address in support of “comprehensive immigration 7 elections ended a dozen years of Republican ascen- Senior Analyst, Center for reform,” making this his top domestic priority. After dancy on Capitol Hill—passing the initiative on the Study of Los Angeles, extensive debate and negotiations, the Senate respond- immigration policy to the new Congressional leadership Loyola Marymount University ed in May with a bipartisan legislative package that and a lame-duck White House. IMMIGRATION POLICY BATTLE 05–06 House passes “Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration December 05 Control Act of 2005”—H.R. 4437 March–May 06 Millions protest H.R. 4437 in marches across USA1 May 15 President Bush addresses nation on immigration reform Senate passes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”— May 25 S.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 105 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 105 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 143 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1997 No. 148 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speak- The Chaplain, Reverend James David A message from the Senate by Mr. er, let me begin by expressing the deep Ford, D.D., offered the following Lundregan, one of its clerks, an- appreciation of all those assembled for prayer: nounced that the Senate agrees to the the eloquent prayer offered by our In all the moments of life or death we report of the committee of conference Chaplain, Jim Ford, who is not only a are grateful, Almighty God, that Your on the disagreeing votes of the two great leader in times of distress but in Spirit is with us to give strength when Houses on the amendments of the Sen- this case a close personal friend of the we are weak, to nurture us along life's ate to the bill (H.R. 2107) ``An Act mak- deceased, our friend, WALTER CAPPS. I hope we have an opportunity today way, and to sustain us with the prom- ing appropriations for the Department and later this week to have many ise of everlasting life. of the Interior and related agencies for We remember with gratitude and love Members come to the floor to express the fiscal year ending September 30, our friend and colleague, WALTER their strong feelings about WALTER 1998, and for other purposes.''.
  • Family Affair House 2012 CR

    Family Affair House 2012 CR

    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….……1 PARTNERSHIP WITH LEGISTORM…………………………………………………...2 METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………..3 KEY FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………..4 RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………….7 THE MEMBERS ALABAMA……………………………………………………………………...10 ARIZONA………………………………………………………………………..13 ARKANSAS……………………………………………………………………..18 CALIFORNIA…………………………………………………………………...20 COLORADO…………………………………………………………………….56 CONNECTICUT………………………………………………………………...62 FLORIDA………………………………………………………………………..65 GEORGIA………………………………………………………………………..86 HAWAII…………………………………………………………………………96 IDAHO…………………………………………………………………………...99 ILLINOIS……………………………………………………………………….101 INDIANA………………………………………………………………………120 IOWA…………………………………………………………………………...126 KANSAS……………………………………………………………………….129 KENTUCKY……………………………………………………………………133 LOUISIANA……………………………………………………………………140 MAINE…………………………………………………………………………146 MARYLAND…………………………………………………………………..148 MASSACHUSETTS…………………………………………………………...154 MICHIGAN…………………………………………………………………….161 MINNESOTA…………………………………………………………………..172 MISSISSIPPI…………………………………………………………………...178 MISSOURI……………………………………………………………………..183 MONTANA…………………………………………………………………….193 NEBRASKA……………………………………………………………………195 NEVADA……………………………………………………………………….198 NEW JERSEY………………………………………………………………….202 NEW MEXICO…………………………………………………………………210 NEW YORK……………………………………………………………………214 NORTH CAROLINA…………………………………………………………..229 OHIO……………………………………………………………………………237 OKLAHOMA…………………………………………………………………..249 OREGON……………………………………………………………………….255 PENNSYLVANIA……………………………………………………………...258
  • Committees in the 111Th Congress for the Preserving the American Historical Records Act January 2010

    Committees in the 111Th Congress for the Preserving the American Historical Records Act January 2010

    Committees in the 111th Congress for the Preserving the American Historical Records Act January 2010 U. S. House of Representatives House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democrats Republicans Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ranking Minority Member Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) Dan Burton (R-IN) Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) John L. Mica (R-FL) Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) Mark E. Souder (R-IN) Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) John F. Tierney (D-MA) Michael Turner (R-OH) William Lacy Clay (D-MO) Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-GA) Diane E. Watson (D-CA) Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC) Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA) Brian Bilbray (R-CA) Jim Cooper (D-TN) Jim Jordan (R-OH) Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA) Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) Danny Davis (D-IL) Aaron Schock (R-IL) Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) Henry Cuellar (D-TX) Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA) Paul W. Hodes (D-NH) Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT) Peter Welch (D-VT) Bill Foster (D-IL) Jackie Speier (D-CA) Steve Driehaus (D-OH) Judy Chu (D-CA) Mike Quigley (D-IL) Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives Democrats Republicans William Lacy Clay (MO), Chairman Patrick McHenry (NC), Ranking Member Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Vice Ranking Paul Kanjorski (PA) Member Carolyn Maloney (NY) Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) John Mica (FL) Danny Davis (IL) Jason Chaffetz (UT) Steve Driehaus (OH) Diane Watson (CA) Henry Cuellar (D-TX) House Committee on Appropriations Democrats Republicans David R.
  • California--105Th Congressional Pictorial Directory

    California--105Th Congressional Pictorial Directory

    CALIFORNIA Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Barbara Boxer of San Francisco of Greenbrae Democrat—Nov. 10, 1992 Democrat—Jan. 3, 1993 Frank Riggs Wally Herger of Windsor (1st District) of Marysville (2d District) Republican—3d term* Republican—6th term 9 CALIFORNIA Vic Fazio John T. Doolittle of West Sacramento (3d District) of Rocklin (4th District) Democrat—10th term Republican—4th term Robert T. Matsui Lynn Woolsey of Sacramento (5th District) of Petaluma (6th District) Democrat—10th term Democrat—3d term 10 CALIFORNIA George Miller Nancy Pelosi of Martinez (7th District) of San Francisco (8th District) Democrat—12th term Democrat—6th term Ronald V. Dellums Ellen Tauscher of Oakland (9th District) of Pleasanton (10th District) Democrat—14th term Democrat—1st term 11 CALIFORNIA Richard W. Pombo Tom Lantos of Tracy (11th District) of San Mateo (12th District) Republican—3d term Democrat—9th term Fortney Pete Stark Anna G. Eshoo of Hayward (13th District) of Atherton (14th District) Democrat—13th term Democrat—3d term 12 CALIFORNIA Tom Campbell Zoe Lofgren of Campbell (15th District) of San Jose (16th District) Republican—4th term* Democrat—2d term Sam Farr Gary A. Condit of Carmel (17th District) of Ceres (18th District) Democrat—3d term Democrat—5th term 13 CALIFORNIA George Radanovich Calvin M. Dooley of Mariposa (19th District) of Visalia (20th District) Republican—2d term Democrat—4th term Bill Thomas Walter Holden Capps of Bakersfield (21st District) of Santa Barbara (22d District) Republican—10th term Democrat—1st term 14 CALIFORNIA Elton Gallegly Brad Sherman of Simi Valley (23d District) of Sherman Oaks (24th District) Republican—6th term Democrat—1st term Howard P.