Political Funeral // Bring Out Your Dead! A/ In the time of the Black Plague, Town Criers urged the townspeople to bring their dead into the streets to show the enormous loss and suffering of the disease. Now ACT UP calls on the public to memorialize our dead with ashes, photographs and memorabilia, and demonstrate our grief and anger at the State. A(TUP Full funding of state health c^-^rO^rafns. AIDS programs, inclu^n^^^l^P, tuberculosis and other coi^fcinf^mle diseases No cuts to SSI, AFDC, l^edi-C^^sistance prograi^§ Oi State tunaeame yx V €>' V Endorse alternative treatments o uhd Cal OSHA '.y"^ Keei Ihe growing AIDS cas^foa^dT Repeal proposistion 13 1 health care in the state prison system No more corporate coddling Stonyete Wilsons grab of local property tax revenues

State Capitol Building, Sacramento Friday Oct. 29,12 noon For transportation or other info CALL: 415/252*9200

Disaster .J: Sincerely, Ij ^ncerely. flnRHPHDNE/FllXZflP

HOilEI tITII iNDHY, JULY ZO, 199Z

ACT is once UP/GOLDEN GATE again taiggting Astra Pharmaceuticals with an international phone/£ix zap on After six months of negodating meetings, letter writing, and demonstrations by Act Up and other aids activists, Astra refuses to lower the price of their anti-cmv drug Foscamct.

The international phone/^ zap is meant to continue the of the outrageous price of Foscamet, which is the highest priced aids drug in history, at also called Foscavir, is one ofthe simplest compounds to manufitcture. Astra will not negotiate and will not drop the price. Astra is on the lives of people with aids.

Astra has responded poorly to the community for yean. San Francisco activist Terry Sutton was told to choose between his sight and his life when Astra refused to allow him access to Foscamet if he continued taking azt. Now, Astra is robbing and the American public blind with their drug pricing.

Monday, July 20, Astra will host a reception/symposium at the International aids Conference in Amsterdam. To coincide with demonstrations at the Astra symposium, activists at home can increase the agitation by hudng and phoning the following numben on July 20th (use the enclosed ^ sheet):

Stefan Soivell U Vice President of Finance Astra Phannaceuticais Phone: 508-366-1100 Fac 508-366-7466 0

Sarah MartiiKHunley Astra Keproentative Phone: 508-366-1100 exL 2297

Ted Bitner Hfl and Knmvfton (Astra's PR fnn) 415-78! 2430

Furthermore, we ask that your fnends and families continue to harass Astra, mail Astra copies of the enclosed flyer. Send postcards saying Too bad I can't see this, I'm going blind because I can't aflbid Foscamet." P. 1 NOV 04 '92 02:35Pr'1 SF filDS^fPUyORTIOfl, ,.

3 November 1992 DATE:

G'dali Braverman TO;

' ACT-UP/Golden Gate

SENT TO FAX #:

FROM; Lea Pappag

NUMBER PAGES (INCLUDING COVER)

SENDER'S PHONE #; 415-864-5855 EXT. 904n

SENDER'S FAX #: 415-552-1583

NO RESPONSE,REQUESTED; YES X. ARTIST'S CHOICE John Baldessari e.g.. Grass, Water Heater, Mouths, & etc. (for John Graham)

The Museum of Modern Art, March 17-May 10, 1994

THE ARTIST'S CHOICE SERIES IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A GENEROUS

GRANT FROM THE CHARLES A. DANA FOUNDATION. FOREWORD DATING BARS AND MONTAIGNE John Baldessari

This is the fourth in an ongoing series of exhibitions; in each, their fragments into a new form, in which the "meaningless" I love to go to a museum and play games and think of all the ing, but less will suffice. It may be a line, a shape, or even a sub¬ an artist is invited to mount a small show drawn from the serendipity of odd formal or thematic similarities can spur paintings on the wall as if connected like frames in a strip of ject (a cup or a shoe). Little paintings within paintings maybe, Museum's collection. The series was conceived with several unexpected new meanings. Baldessari's constant questioning of movie film. Or think of, say, a van Gogh near a Cezanne. If a like those Russian dolls. I seldom see an image that I do not goals in mind. Most simply, it allows our visitors a chance to the standard logic of pictorial arrangements within individual blank canvas were inserted between, what kind of painting want to crop. Usually the image will have too much fat, too see the works in the collection in a fresh way. The Museum's works and among groups of images engages serious issues of upon it would convert the three into a seamless whole? much baggage. I think I can make it better, more essential, normal display reflects the curators' selections according to language structure and meaning with a deft, light-hearted blend tighter in what I feel it might accomplish. hierarchies of historical importance, and has been traditional¬ of playfulness and pedagogy. This tenor is, of course, personal, Or lookingat a Picasso, if it were placed in the middle of a much ly divided in terms of separate mediums (photography in one but it also exemplifies the ways in which Southern larger canvas, and the painting continued to the new borders, Perhaps it is the tyranny of the frame. By playing these games I area, paintings in another, etc.), and presented in a linear, has produced a distinctive variant style in Conceptual Art, as what would it look like? can prevent the frame from closing in, from dominating. I select chronological order. The artist, freed from these constraints, in Minimalism and Pop. , with its relatively unchang¬ and I crop and I have all these details of works. As a result, icons can mix mediums, bring less familiar works to the fore, and ing climate, its scarcity of monuments of pre-modern history, Or a reassembled Greek vase with missing shards replaced are made manageable and less important works become bet¬ show well-known masterpieces in surprising contexts. Such and its culture—which includes long, contemplative stretches with plaster—how I am able to fantasize upon that tabula rasa. ter. A democratization. Like Elvis in the army. Yet each cropped intentionally idiosyncratic selections both challenge us to see in automobiles and a special relation to the illusions of The power of vacancy, of nothingness. How interesting a void element is a work of art for me and each lovable (as in a litter more, and to see differently. movies—seems to have nurtured a special kind of sly, deadpan can be! And if the original shards were replaced one by one of little dogs). Beyond expanding our sense of the depth and richness humor and detached irony. Baldessari is a master of that sen¬ with plaster shards, when would the vase become a part rather of the Museum's holdings, these personal groupings also under¬ sibility. than a whole? What is the difference between a part and a The next job is to assemble these diverse parts into a new line the ongoing relationship between the Museum's role in From the particularity of Baldessari's selections, we whole? (It is a matter of intent; of what I want it to be.) If a whole, to build them like words in a sentence or phrase. They preserving the past of modern art and its engagement in con¬ might draw at least two general lessons. First, Baldessari shows Richard Long rock piece were substituted rock by rock, at are like words that jump out at me from a page. Why, in scan¬ temporary creativity. The Artist's Choice shows suggest how how photographic reproduction can enlarge the descendancy what point (if any) would it be stolen? ning a page, be it a page in a dictionary or a novel, do some contemporary innovation may be joined to a personal vision of of works of art, encouraging individual parts to migrate and words defy gravity—levitate before my eyes? Fey or jejune, for modern art's past. By seeing the collection through the eyes of spawn separately in rogue fashion. Second, his collage is a par¬ Art musing. But then, that is how art is made—by play. example. That an essay could be written about each gives proof artists who use it as a base for new departures, we appreciate ticularly vivid demonstration of a crucial way in which modern of dormant power. more fully the ways in which the Museum is a living resource art has evolved and continues to evolve—not as a linear relay Of several ideas for this project what I decided to do was to for the continued unfolding of modern art. race of movements and isms, but through hybrids, mutations, go about it as if I were doing art of my own. Often I rummage So trial pairings are attempted, with the artist as cupid. As few limits as possible are placed on what each artist and unpredictable recombinations that are first produced by through boxes of unsorted photos. I would do the same at Wouldn't it be a windfall if words could seek the word of their may do, and each approaches the opportunity differently. John individual sensibilities and then attract—as Baldessari's work MoMA. dreams in the personal columns? Sparks fly; magnetisms occur. Baldessari is the first to make a new work as a part of his pre¬ clearly has—new "schools" around them. In the singles bar of words, awkward attempts at pairings are sentation, assembling a hybrid construction of details from I went through notebooks of photo documentation looking for made. What word will go home with another word? Perhaps a paintings, prints, drawings, photographs, and film stills from Kirk Varnedoe some element or detail that would jump out at me. In going to threesome occurs. Or a couple appears to bond with another various departments of the Museum. Working with reproduc¬ Chief Curator galleries, I'm happy if at the end of the day I find at least one couple. There are diw)rces, separations. The words unite for tions on varying scales, he breaks works apart and reassembles Department of Painting and Sculpture square inch of good painting. I'd prefer to like an entire paint¬ diverse reasons—they look alike or they don't, they share e.g.. Grass, Water Heater, Mouths, & etc. (for John Graham) 1994. Black-and-white and color photographs: gelatin-silver prints, chromagenic color prints, and oil stain, 15' 10" x 8' 2". Photo: Charles Leavitt Thomas Hart Benton Homestead Fernand Leger Landscape with Yellow Hat Giorgio de Chirico Gare Montpamasse Marc Chagall (Melancholy of Departure) Homage to Gogol

John D. Graham Pablo Picasso yHariequin (Seif-Portrait) Harlequin

Henri Rousseau Cumberland Coast Henri Matisse The Sleeping Gypsy Dance (First version)

Three Utile Pigs Walt Disney Productions Pablo Picasso Sleeping Peasants

Max Pechstein Georges-Pierre Seurat Max Raphael At the Concert European

Andrew Wyeth Christina's World Joseph Pickett Manchester Valley Louis Michel Eilshemius Afternoon Wind Diego Rivera Georges-Pierre Seurat —— The Channel at Gravelines, Evening Agrarian Leader Zapata Marc Chagall Birthday

Paul Gauguin St/7/ Life with Three Puppies Edouard Vuillard Andy Warhol Andre Derain Charles Sheeler Still Ufe with Top Hat Water Heater London Bridge Bucks County Barn Vincent van Willem de Kooning Gogh The Charles Laughton Irving Penn Woman I Starry Night in Ruggles of Red Gap Stiil Life with Watermelon

artist unknown Exquisite Corpse

Key to: e.g., Grass, Water Heater, Mouths, & etc. (for John Graham) different values or they don't, and so on. But if the connection Will it last, this Utopia? is to be right, it must not be too much the same, or too little.

A certain tautness is necessary. The goal is to establish a com¬ Did these parts unite on their own or was there a master munity with as few excluded as possible. The perfect dinner builder? What would an archaeologist or anthropologist find? party or stew where there is connectedness because certain Were some principles discovered from a bird's-eye view? Yes. adjustments have been made. Some made larger, some smaller; A meandering baroque configuration with grid-like indications. color added or A subtracted; maybe not the outfits they normal¬ bit like a constellation—hovering between a collection of ly wear. Cut off from their old family to form a new one. Perhaps parts and an entity ready to explode into further new parts. akin to leaving home for college. Will the center hold? And if so, for how long? But what about the original families?

Emily (or Joey) was never noticed— Artists carry around their own just a cog. The spotlight shines on museums in their minds. A lexicon of

Emily and she is a star. The others will images to select from and form have their day another time. What essays later. From Montaigne's focus¬ about Joey's family? Let us show him ing upon certain topics we feel we as Joey-as-missing. An absence but know him. In knowing Montaigne, we powerful in this new guise. Joey as arrive to look at dog-eared truths the plaster shard. anew. Until someone spots a sen¬ tence in Montaigne that levitates, and Let us return to the new community. then the process starts afresh.

Above; John D. Graham. Harlequin (Self-Portrait). c. 1944. Oil and pencil on canvas, 24 '/e x 20 'A". The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Gift of Margery and Harry Kahn, 1973. Covet*; John D. Graham. Harlequin (Self-Portrait) with shape excised by John Baldessari John Baldessari

Born 1931, National City, California Attended San Diego State College, California, 1955-57; Attended San Diego State College, California, 1949-53; received M.A., 1957 received B.A., 1953 Attended Otis Art Institute, Los Angeles; Chouinard Art Institute, Attended University of California at Berkeley, 1954-55 Los Angeles, 1957-59 Attended University of California at Los Angeles, 1955 Lives in Santa Monica, California, and , THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1994

THE 1994 ELECTIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

— district 26 100% district 51 — 100% CALIFORNIA D Howard Barman. D* 48,840 63% Ril? Tamerlus, D 51,785 28% Gary Forsch, R 25,101 32% □ R Cunningham, R* 124,557 67% Erich Miller, O 5% district I — 100% 4,112 Miriam Clark, O 3,751 2% 47% Bill Dan Hamburg, D* 88,242 district 27 — 100% Holmes, O 6,333 3%

100,819 53% 43% — KEY ■ Frank Riggs, R Doug Kahn, D 61,967 district 52 100% 52% district 2 — 99% □ Carlos Moorhead, R" 75,566 Janol Gastil, D 48,411 31% Mary Jacobs, D 53.229 26% Dennis Decherd, O 3,423 2% □ Duncan Hunter, R* 99,825 64% D Democrat OWally Merger, R* 131,775 64% Bill Gibbs, O 3,878 3% Arl Edelman, Q 2,953 2% 14,898 7% Joe Shea, O 4,779 3% R l^pevvy Kidd, O , ^district 28 — 100% Republican 5,162 3% 31% ; Harry Pendery, O Tommy Randle, D 45,402 67% .* Inpumbent . DISTRICT 3 — 100% □ , R" 99,342 COLORADO ' ' □ Vic Fazk), D* 86,802 49% Jofj Baker, O 3,757 3% □ Winner , 47% ■; Tim Lefever. 83,700 """TKSTRICT 29 — 100* DISTRICPl.-^ 99* R „.4% ... • m ^Winnifi^cbaM V . iRoss Craki, P •7.460, v-FDHenry Waxman, D* 113,023 68% □ Pat Schrd^r, D* 91,568 .60% 28% j. ■DISTRICT4-^99%'.^ri:^'i^; -■ TvT^Piaol Stepanek, R 46,226 . William E^geri, R' 61,304 ; 40% ^ 4% Katie Hirriing.JP^6:120^^^ *Wchaer6inkley, 0 6,350 DISTRICT 2 ^4 100* DISTRICT 30 — 100* . John po6«1io7R'i^l32.46l'^1*"- □ David Skaggs, pV 105,643 ' 57% Recerra, D* 38,712 66% Patricia Miller, R' ' 81,025 43% • .David Ramirez, R* 16,269 28% l>ISTRicTSr-,lOp%„, ' DISTRICT 3 — ioo* Waiam 6% □ Robert MatsiiirD* "'.f18,463 68% Weilburg. O 3,343 • Unda Powers, D 63,280 30% Robert Dinsmore, R 50,363 29% □ Scoti Mclonis, R* 145,301 70% DISTRICT 31 — 100* Gordon Mors, G ' 4,438 ; <'3% j □ Matttiew Martinez, D' 45,503 59% piStRICT 4 — 100* DISTRICTS—100% " 41% Cathy Kipp, D 52,567 28% 58% Jotm Flores, R 31,156 D Lynn Woolsey, D* 125,117 □ Wayne Allard, R' 137,729 72% ALABAMA r 38% DISTRICT 32 — 100* Mictiael Nugent, R 81,342 DISTRICT S □ JuGan Dixon, D* 88,007 78% Louis Beary, O 5,643 3% Emie Farhat, R 19,469 17% □ Joel Hefley, R* Uncontested DISTRICT 1 — iOO% Ernest Jones, O 3,670 2% DISTRICT 6 — 100* Don Womack, D 49,671 33% John Honigsfeld, O 5,559 5% DISTRICT 7 — 100% John Hallen, D 49,701 28% DH.L. Callahan. R* 101,956 67% 107,794 70% DISTRICT 33 — 100* □ George Miller, D* □ □ L. 30,350 81% Dan Schaefer, R* 124,079 70% DmRICT2—100% Charles Hughes, R 42,154 27% Roybal-Allard, D* • Kermit Booker, 0 6,953 19% Stephen Dawson, O 1,393 1% 4n Dowling. D 44,694 2&°/a William Callison, 4,430 3% O John Heckman, O 2,536 1% DISTRICT 34 — 100% jiry Everett, R* 124,525 74% DISTRICT 8 — 100% □ Esteban Torres, D" 65,598 62% aCT 3 — 100% □ 119,095 82% Nancy Pelosi, D* 36,039 34% I Browder, D' 93,795 64% Elsa Cheung, R 26,232 18% .Atoert Nunez, R Carl Swiriney, O .4,492 4% CONNECTICUT ^Hand, R 53,706 36% DISTRICT 9 — 100% DISTRICT 35 — 100% Dt§™iCT4 \ • □ Ronald Dellums, D* 117,818 72% DISTRICT 1 — 88* I □ Maxine Waters, Di 60,446 78% DTwn Bevill, D' Uncontested Detxjrah Wright, R 36,914 23% Nate Trurhan, R 16,802 22% □ B. Kennelly, D* 127,305 73% DISTRICT S — 100% 5% Emma Wong Mar, O 8,369 44,210 25% DISTRICT 36 — 100% Douglas Putnam, R □ Bud Cramer. D* 88,542 5t% — DISTRICT 10 100% John Forry, O 2,993 2% 39% Jane Harman, D* 82,322 48% Wayne Parker, R 86,717 49% , Ellen Schwartz, D 82,555 DISTRICT 2 — 99% , . 82,415 48% 59% ' , R DHrtRICT 6 — 100% (jBill Baker, R* 126,295 43% ' 3.469 2% Sam Gejdenson, D' 79,747 Ijirry Fortentjerry, D 40,659 21% Craig Cooper, 4,459 2% Joseph Fields, O O 4,461 3% Edward Munster, R 79.476 42% □ I Jack Tyler, O Spencer Bachus, R* 152,757 79% — David Bingham, O 28,155 15% „lplSTRICT 11 99% i DISTRICTS? — 100% DISTRICT 7— 99% i;;*-Randy Perry, D 48,762 35% □ Walter Tucker III, D' 58,693 78% DISTRICT 3 — 89% □ Richard Pombo, R* 86,177 62% OE?fl Hilliard, 113,985 77% 16,777 22% □ Rosa DeLauro, D" 101,864 63% A. MkJdleton Sr., R 4,216 3% Guy Wilson, O 34,649 23% Joseph Miller, O Susan Johnson, R 59,717 37% DISTRICT 38 — 100%

. — DISTRICT 12 100% DISTRICT 4 — 95% 67% Peter Mathews, D 47,672 37% □ Tom Lantos, D' 102,273 J. Kanlrowllz, D 34,037 24% 33% □ Steve Horn, R' 76,399 59% kSKA . Detoorah Wilder, R 49,580 Richard Green, O 2,768 2% □ C. Shays, R* 104,264 74% o.DISTRICT 13 — 100% Lester Mueller, O 3,451 3% Terry Nevas, 0 596 ,0% 88,999 64% /m^RCC — 88% □ Forlney Stark, P* Irving Sussman, O 1,744 1% 30% DISTRICT 39 — 100% 55,464 33% , . 42,026 T^y Smith, D J Larry Molton, R Bob Davis, D 46,169 29% DISTRICT 5 — 99% □ Don.Young, 96,163 57% Robert Gough, 7,163 5% R* ' O James Maloney, D 80,039 45% 17,085 10% □ Ed Royce, R* 105,602 66% DISTRICT 14 — 100% 5% □ Gary Franks, R* 92,212 52% 61% Jack [iean, O 7,410 ^ni Whitmore, O Anna Eshoo, D* 109,149 Rosila Rodriguez, O 4,047 2% 70,801 39% 0ISTRICT40 — 100* ^ i'lBen Brink, R Donald Rusk, D 46,360. 29% DISTRICT 6 — 99% ARIZONA — DISTRICT IS 100% 71% Charlotte Koskoff, D 59,266 32% 60% □ Jerry Lewis, R* 111,738 □ Norm Mineta, D* 109,475 □ 119,323 64% DISTRICT 41 — 100% , R* DISTRICT 1 — 100% Robert Wick, R 74,455 40% 5% 38% Patrick Danford, O 8,914 Chuck Ed Tessier, D 47,271 Blanchard, D 68,661 39% "district 16 — 100% □ 77,393 62% ■ Matt Salmon, R 97,513 56% Jay Kim, R* □ Zoe Lofgren, D 3,778 65% Bob Ho\warth, 0 8,683 5% 35% district 42 — 100% Lyie Smith, R 37,359 ■ DELAWARE □ 56,924 51% DISTRICT 2 — 99% George Brown Jr . D- district 17 — 100% Fob Guzman, R 54,496 49% at-large — 100% □ Ed Pastor, D' 59,925 62% □ Sam Farr, D" 76,521 52% district 43 — 100% Robert MacDonald, R 31,411 33% Bill 66,537 45% Carol DeSantis, D 51,784 27% McCampbell, R 39% 3% .Mark Takano, D 54,129 □ Michael Castle, R' 137.646 71% . E- Craig Coffin, O 4,903 j^mes Bertrand, O 4,870 5% □ Ken Calvert, R* 77,152 55% e^rmcT 3 — 99% Danny Beaver, O 3,853 2% "':blSTRICT 18 — 100% 6% award Gene Serkman, O 8,887 Donald Hockmuth, O, 1,399 1% league, D>-60,903 ' 30% Cqridit, V 79,760 65% ^^Gary D* ^DISTRICT Tom 39,680 C 44;— too* CtirM.R !■■■' Steve Clute, D 60.134 38% .1 Oarnes Mofirella, Qv. „ t3i465~^ □Sormy Bono, R 87,728 ■ 56% ^^ISTRICT 19 — 100% Donald Cochran, O 10,043 6% FLORIDA □JohfiTeHadeStf^Wt 5 Rick Lehman, D* 64,246 39% DISTRICT 45 — 100* Mark- Yannone, O^ 7i190 e 4% • ■ G. Radanovich, R 92,979 57% DISTRICT 1 — 99* Brett Williamson, O 51.964 31% DISTRICT 5 — 100% ^ •' « - Dolores Comstock, O 5,830 4% Vince Whibbs.iD 67,191 39% ' 69% □ Oi1o(irat>acher, R* 116,177 ■ Joe 106,140 61% Gary Auerbach, 0. , 58,906 29% DISTRICT 20 — 100% Scarborough, R DISTRICT 46— 100* D Jim Kolbe,* R*' ' V? ,139,330 68% 56% DISTRICT 2 — „QPal Dootey, D* 47,857 37% 100%/ ' 44% MfceFartrer, D 29,976 □ Pete POterson, D*' 115,748 62% Phillip Murphy, d 7,337 4% . . Paul Young, R 37,682 46,460 57% DISTRICT 6—100% ^ □ Robert Dornan, R* Carole Griffin, R 72,050 ■ 38% .^.DISTRICT 21— 100% ^ .Richard-Newhouse, O 4,706 6% Karan English, D* .80,362 42% John Evans, D 41,599 27% DISTRICT 3 — 100* DISTRICT 47 — 100* . ■ J.D. Hayv^h, R - "105,005 54% Bill Thomas. R* 104.472 69% □ Cofrihe Brown, D* 62,650 58% ' Gary Kingsbury, D 49,557 25% Sequoia Fuller. O ' 7^570. 4% - Mike Hodges. O 6,132 4% Marc Little, R'• 45,390 42% □ 72% Christopher Cox, R* 143,060 DISTRICT DISTRICT 22 — 100% 4^ - Victof Wagner, O 6,809 3% Walter Capps, D 89,643 49% □ Tillie Fowler, R* Uncontested DISTRICT 48 — 100* ARKANSAS Andrea S^strand, R 90,612 "49% DISTRICT S — 100% Andrei Leschick, D 40,150 22% David Bersohn, O 4,127 2% □ Karen Thurman. D* 125,780 '57% □ Ron Packard. R* 132,319 73% DISTRICT 1 — 99% Don 94,093 43% DISTRICT 23 — 100* Garlits, R ' 4% □ 94,841 54% Donna White, O 7,914 Blanche Lamljert, D' ■ 28% DISTRICT 6 r, KevirfReady, D 41,453 ■ Warren 82,053 46% DISTRICT 49 — 100* Dupwe, R □Elton 66% □ CWIord Stearns, R* • Uncontested Gallegly. R* 99,022 79,029 46% district 2 — too* - 4% Lynn Schenk, D* Bill Broi^fn, O 5,818 DISTRICT 7 — 100* " 49% □ 97,463 57% 3% ■ Brian Bilbray, R 83,743 Ray Thornton, D* Robert Marston, O 3,982 Edward Goddard, D 47,742 . 27% Bill Powell, R 72,419 43% Chris Hoogenboom, O 4,945 3% DISTRICT 24 — 100% □ John Mica, R-* 131,705 73% Renate Kline, O 4,580 3% district 3 — 100* 49% .. ..□A, Beilenson, D* 84,080 DISTRICT 8 61,766 32% 47% district SO — 100* a^Berla Seitz, D Rich Sytrert, R □ Bill McCoilum. R* Uncontested 60,879 □ Bob Fitner, D* 55,015 57% Hutchinson, R' 129,623 68% John Koehler, O 5,493 3% M. A. Acevedo, R 34,119 35% DISTRICT 9 ."district 4 — 100* DISTRICT 25 — 100% 3% □ Michael Bilirakis, R* Uncontested 48% Rcardo Duenez, O 3,098 Jay Bradford, D . 81,243 32% • James Gilmartin, D 47',554 Kip Krueger, O 1,822 2% DISTRICT 10 i; □ Jay Dickey. R* 87.349 52% 65% □ Howard McKeon, R" 97,613 Guillermo Ramirez, O 2,817 3% □ C.W. Bill Young, R* Uncontested 4% Cr -' Devin Cutler, O 5,587 MARYLAND '

Ralph Gles, D. 55,725 32% □ Wayne Gilchresl, R* 115,838 68%

district 2 — 100% Gerry Brewster, D 72,333 37% □ Robert Ehrlich Jr., R 121,165 63%

district 3 — 100% □ Benjamin Cardin, D' 113,009 71%> ILLINOIS Robert Tousey, 13 46,231 29%.

district 4 — 100% district 1 — 100% □ Albert Wynn, D' 91,021 75% □ Bobby D* 107,000 75% IOWA Rush, Michele 29,620 25% William Dyson, R district 11 — 100% Kelly, R 34,807 25% district s — 100% district 2 district 1 — 100% D Sam Gibbons, D" 76,774 52% □ Glen Steny Hoyer, D' 95,550 59% 48% □ Mel Uncontested Winekauf, D 69,240 38% Mark Sharpe. R 72,062 Reynolds, D* Donald 41% □ Jim Leach, R* 109,975 60% Devine, R 66,765 district 12 — 100% district 3 — 100% district — Michael Cuddehe, O 1,169 1% 6 100% Robert Connors, D 57,018 35% □ William Lipinski, D* 90,699 54% Paul Jan Zonneveld, O 2,322 1% Muldowney, D 61,031 34%> □ Charles 105,737 65% Jim Nalepa, R 77,125 46% Canady, R' □ Roscoe Bartlett, R" .1-18,297 66% DISTRICT 4 — 100* DISTRICT 13 DISTRICT 7 — 100* DISTRICT 2 — 100* □ Luis Gutierrez. D' 44,235 75% □ Kwelsl □ Dan ' Mfume. D* 93,170 81% Miller; R* Uncontested Steven 25% Dave Nagle. D 8§,024> 44% Valt.lerra, R 14,699 Kenneth 19% DISTRICT 14 V Kondner. R 21,879 DISTRICT □JimNussle. R*,. < 110,639 <56%' S—:iOp* . DISTRICT S-i- iob* ' ' .^i., ;• ; D Poftef ;Go8s; > pi'Ros^enkbwski. D* 51.152 45% iiff■ ■ SteVoh Van Gfaik. Di 6e.4'^'i^ 30% ^:^istRlcfi^ ■ Sue Michael.Fl^gan. R <73.340 r 55%^ I ,' □ C. Morella. fl*" " '? 170% dist^CT 6^4^:100* ■ pDave ■ Weldan7B;;^17^!?6.,;'E^ Torn Rerryj.D,Mi 37.017 24% •*"•' .^DISTRICT □ Henry Hyde; R*,< 115.286 74% DerricK Jbhh MASSACHUSETTS Connerford^j i'>88,646 ,42% Robert Hogan. O 2.615 2% DKTMCT4'i4.|00*,4 7-vV"v'^ Neat :,DMark Foley. Rotiert 1% p* . ; R'7 ''122.734 58% Wheat. O 1,909 Smith, ,&7,513 46% DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT ■ .IT , , 0 • DISTRICT 7 — 100* Greg Gahiske, R :110.522 i ;,53% □ John □ Carrie Giver. D* Uncontested Meek. D* Uncontested .□Cardiss Collins, D* 86,894 79% Ang^ L,arlscy, O 582 , : '0% William DISTRICT 2 — 99* DISTRICT IS Charles 21% Qviatt, O' " 772' 0% Motiley, R 23.156 □ Richard □ I. Joshua Roberts, O 869 0% Neal, D* 114,826 59% Ros-Lehtlnen, R* Uncontested DISTRICT — 8 100*, John Briare, R 71,018 36% DISTRICT 19 — 100* DISTRICT S — 100* Rotiert Waltierg, D' 47,539 35% Kate Sheila Ross, O 9,901 .5% □ Harry Johnston, D* 147,591 66% □ 88,084 65% McGuIre, D 72,525 39% Philip Crane, R* DISTRICT 3 — Peter Tsakanlkas, R 75,779 □ Tom Latham, R '112,908 61% 100* 34% DISTRICT 9 — 100* Kevin O'Sulllvan, D 93,704 44% DISTRICT 20 — 100* □ 66% Sidney Yates, D" 92,794 □ Peter Blute, R* 116,286 55% D Peter Deutsch, D* 114,615 61% George Larney, R 47,469 34% Dale Friedgen, O 2,382 1% Beverly Kennedy, R 72,516 39% DISTRICT 10 — 100* DISTRICT 4 • DISTRICT 21 Andrew Krupp, D 38,152 25% □ DISTRICT 1 — 99* , D* Uncontested □ L. Diaz Balart, R* Uncontested □ John Porter. R* 114,806 75% Terry Nichols, D 49,245 23% DISTRICT S — 100* DISTRICT 22 — 100* DISTRICT 11 —100* □ Pal 77% □ Martin Meehan, D* 141,144 70%, Hermlne Wiener, D 69,215 37% Frank RotDerts, R* 168,061 GIgllo. D 62,779 39% David Coleman, R DISTIdCT 2 — 99* 60,628 ,30% □ ,,R* 119,690 63% ■ Gerald Weller. R 96,986 61% John Carlln, D 71.267 34% DISTRICT 6 — 100* DISTRICT 23 DISTRICT 12 — 100* ■ Sam John Tlerney, D 113,289 47% □ Alcee Browntrack, R 135.568 66% Hastings, D* Uncontested □ Jerry Costello, D* 101,391 66% □ Peter Torklldsen, R* 120,743 51%. Jan Morris, R 52,417 34% DISTRICT 3 — 100* Judy Hancock, D 78,207 43% Benjamin Gatchell, O 4,939 2% DISTRICT 13 — 100* □ Jan Meyers, R* 102,107 57% DISTRICT 7 — 100* GEORGIA William Riley, D 45,709 27% □ Edward 64% DISTRICT 4 — 99% Markey, D* 145,966 □ Harris Fawell, R* 12-4,312 73% Brad Dan Gllckman, D* 99,096 47% Bailey, R 80,629 36% DISTRICT 1 — 99* DISTRICT 14 — 100* ■ Todd 53% DISTRICT 8 R. Beckworlh, D 27,671 24% TIahrt, R 111,075 Steve Denarl, D 33,885 24% □ Joseph Kennedy It, D* Uncontested □ Jack Kingston, R* 88,658 76% □ J. D. Hastert, R' 109,681 76% DISTRICT 9 — 99* DISTRICT 2 — 99* DISTRICT IS — 100* □ Joe Moakley, D* 143,530 70%> □ Sanford 64,236 66% Bishop, D* Paul Alexander, D 50,874 32% Michael Murphy, R 60,737 30% John 34% Clayton, R 33,307 □ Thomas 108,857 68% DISTRICT 1 — 100* Ewing, R* DISTRICT 10 — 100* DISTRICT 3 >- 94* Tom 49% DISTRICT 16 — 100* Barlow. D* 62,225 □ , D* 171,585 69%, Fred 43,575 34% ■ Overby, D Pete Sullivan, D 48,736 29% Edward Whit/leld, R 64,659 51%. Keith Hemeon, R 78,055 31% □ Mac 84,372 66% Collins, R* □ Donald Manzullo, R' 117,238 71% DISTRICT 2 — 100% DISTRICT 4 — 100* DISTRICT 17 — 100* David Adklsson, D 60,797 40% 42% Comer Yates, D 66,366 □ Lane Evans, D* • 95,312 55% □ Ron Lewis, R* 90,363 60% MICHIGAN " □ John 58% LInder, R* 90,063 Jim Anderson, R 79,471 45% DISTRICT 3 — 100* DISTRICT 1 — 99* DISTRICT S — 100* DISTRICT 18 — 100* Mike Ward, D 67,637 44% □ Bart □ John Lewis, D* 85,094 69% Douglas Stephens, D 78,332 40% Susan Stokes. R 67,210 44% Stupak, D* 121,138 57% 31% Gil 42'%- Dale Dixon, R 37,999 □ RayLaHood, R 119,838 60% Richard Lewis, O 17,577 12% Zlegler, R 89,745 Michael 1% — McPeak, O 2,407 DISTRICT 6 100* DISTRICT 19 — 100* DISTRICT 4 — 100* 36% DISTRICT 2 — 100* Ben Jones, D 66,681 □ Glenn Poshard, D' 115,045 58% Sally Skaggs, D 33,713 26%, □ , R* 119,550 64% Brent Winters, R 81,995 42% □ Jim Running, R* 96,464 74% Marcus Hoover, D 46,069 24% □ — Peter Hoekstra, R* 145.368 75% DISTRICT 7 100% district 20 — 100% district 5 — 100% 48% Lu 1%. George Garden, D' 65,481 □ Richard Durbin, D' 108,034 55% Walter Blevins, D 21,309 21%, Wiggins, O 1.880 ■ Bob Barr, R 70.801 52% Bill Owens, R 88,964 45% □ Harold Rogers, R' 82,276 79% district 3 — 100% 24%, district 8 — 100% district 6 — 100% Betsy Flory, D 43,485 37% □ Vernon Ehlers, R* 135,819 74% Craig Mathis, D 52,977 □ Scotty Baesler, D" 70,082 59%, ■ Saxby Chambliss, R 88,977 63% Matthew Eric Wilts, R 49,030 41%, Barrie Konicov, O 2,958 2%, Susan Normandin, O 1,814 1% DISTRICT 9 — 99* DISTRICT 1 — 100* □ , D* 78,892 58% DISTRICT 4 — 98* □ Peter Vlsclosky. D* 67,527 56% Rotiert Caslello, R 57.477 42% Damion Frasier. D ' 49,^ 25% . LOUISIANA ' Johri Larson, R .. 52,233 ' 44% □ 73% DISTRICT 10 — 99* Davo ■Camp.R* J f;:: J43.821 1 DISTRICT 2 —100* • ' . ■34% Lee, Don Johnson,'D* ■ 51.192 - DISTRICT l. ^ictiael Pjf-, .,2i705 .^1% Joseph Hogsett. D 78.241 46% 7:.j," ■ Ctiarlle Norwood,* R •99.511 66% DISTRICT 5 — 100*'.' ■ David Mcintosh. R □ Bob Uviiigston, R* Uncontested 93,592 54% □ James Barcia, D* 126,522 65% DISTRICT 11 — 99* DISTRICT 3 — 100* DISTRICT2. . William Anderson, R 61,385 32% □ C. McKlriney, D* 71.697 66% □ William Jefferson, P*' Uncontested □ . D' 72.491 55% 1% Woodrow t-Qvett, R ^ 37.502 34% Susan Arnold. O , 2.321 Richard , DISTRICTS. ' Burkett, R 58,878 , -45% 2% Larry Fairchild. 0 . ;3.017 DISTRICT 4— 100* □ WJ. Billy Tauzin. D* Uncontested OiSTRiCTO'—" ioo* ' : - DISTRICT 4 Jin . Long. D* 70,744 45% David Taylor; D J. .,-, 42373 26% B . R 87,665 55% □ Cleo Fields. D*, > Uncontested . □Fred 73% Upton.,R* 121.925, ■ ' DISTRICTS , DISTRICT 1 — 100* DISTRICTS — 100* . , E.A. Berker. O ' ■1,694 1% ' □ Neil 54% □ Jim McCrery. R* Uricontested Abercrombie. D' 94.754 J.D. Beatty. D 45,180 * 28% DISTRICT 7'— iOO*''., Orson Swindle, 43% DISTRICTS R 76,623 ' □ , R* 110,917 70% Klm'McCaughlry, D 57,393 33% Alexandra Kaan, O 2% □ Richard Uncontested 2,816 Clayton Alfred, O 3,400 2% Baker. R* □ Nick Smith, R* 113,721 65% 2,514 1% DISTRICT 7 - Roger Taylor, O DISTRICT 6 — 100* Kenneth Proctor, O 3.313 2% DISTRICT 2 — 100* Natalie Bruner; D 40,244 23% □ James Hayes, D* Uncontested Scott Williamson,p 1,221 1% □ P. T. Mink, D* 124,431 70% □ , R* 134,471 77% DISTRICT 8 — 100* Rotrert Garner. R 42,891 24% DISTRICT 7 — 100* Bob Mitchell. D 95,383 45% t^rry Bartley. O 10,074 6% Michael MAINE Harmless, D 55,856 35% ■ Dick Chrysler, R 109,663 52%

□ Jofin Myers, R* 102,140 . 65% Susan Itene McPeak, O 3,076 1%

DISTRICTS — DISTRICT 1 — 98* 100* , Gerald Turcotte Jr.. 0 4,348 2% IDAHO Frank D. DutremtJe, D 123,513 48% McCloskey, D* 84,751 48% DISTRICT 9 — 100* ■ James 134,312 52% □ , R 93,167 52% Longley, R □ Dale Klldee, D* 97,024 51% DISTRICT 1 — 99* DISTRICT 2 — 96% DISTRICT 9 — 100* Megan O Nelll, R 89,091 47% Larry LaRocco, D* 88,708 44% □ Lee Hamilton, D* 90,148 52% ■ John Batdacci, 0 105,735 46% Karen Blasdell, 0 3,236 2% ■ Helen Chenoweth, R 110,842 56% Jean Rictiard Bennett, R 94,103 41% Leising, R 83,642 48% DISTRICT 10 — 100* DISTRICT 2 — 99* Charles Fitzgerald, O 11,102 5% DISTRICT 10 — 100* □ David Bonier, D* 121,516 62% John Michael, O 20,615 9% Penny Fletcher, D' 48,412 25% □ A. Jacobs Jr., D* 55,491 53% Donald 38% □ Mike Lobsinger, R 73,671 Crapo, R* 143,099 75% Marvin Bailey Scott, R 48,363 47% ■ DISTRICT 11 — 100% DISTRICT 2 — 100% □ JoeSkeen, R* 89,511 63% t DISTRICT19 — 98% DISTRICT 10 — 100% Mike Breshgold, D 69,337 30% MISSOURI Dick Swett, D* 74,098 46%, Rex Johnson, O 6,880 5% Hamilton Fish Jr., D 66,330 36% Robert Avery, D 42,549 28% □ J. ■ Knollenberg, R* 155,158 68% ■ Charles 51% □ □ Cass 107,117 72% Bass, R 82,919 DISTRICT 3 — 100% Sue Kelly, R 96,239 52% Baiienger, R* John Hocking, 0 2,940 1% DISTRICT 1 — 100% i' John Lewicke, O 2,978 2% □ Bill Richardson, D* 99,244 64% Joseph pioGuafdi, O 19,023 10% DISTRICT 11 — 97% DISTRICT 12 — 100% OWiniarn 63% Clay Sr.. D* ',.97.)91 John Spitzfaden, O 1,290 1% F.GreggBemisJr.,R 53,007 34% C. Portman-l^uxi O 1,938 1% Maggie Lauterer, D 75,104 40% □ Sander Levin, D* 103,420 52% Donald Counts, R " '50,426 33% '' Ed 1 □ Charles Taylor, R" 113,207 60% Nagel, 0 3,658 2% ' DISTmCT20^98% . John Pappageorge, R 92,625 47% Crafg Williahison,' O »,>5,664 4% ' Gregory. Jiilian, P 48,950 29% DISTRICT 12 — 100% Eric — Anderson; 0 1,476 1% OrSTRICTR 100% ■ Kj V j D Benjamin Gllman, R' 113,239 68% □ Melvin Watt, D' 57,592 66% . NEW YORK Jerome White, 0 1,384 1% Pat ; 31% Kelly.P .,,--70.488 , h Lois Colandrea, O 4;274 3% Joe Marlino. R 29,910 34% DISTRICT 1 — 100% . DISTRICT 13 — 100% ..□James Talent,'R* 67% '^1M,895 1 0ISTRICT21 — 100% □ Jim' 2% D Robert Andrews, D* 105,196 72% DISTRICT 1 — 100% . Lynn Rivers, D 67,445 52% Higgins, O t.'';'.'4,925 71% , •• □ Michael John James Hogan, R 40,301 28% G. Hochbrueckner, D* 78,620 46% McNulty, D* 144,794 Schall, R 75,889 45% DISTOICT 3 —, 100%: ; V ■ 27% Joseph Gomez, R . 56,239 Helen DISTRICT 2 — 100% ■ , R 90,036 53% Halyard, 0 1,329 1% .□R. 56% 2% Pephardt, D* 117,598 Michael 1% : Timothy Wood, 0 4,040 Gail Petrosoff, O 591 0% 40% Louis Magazzu, D 55,636 35% Strong, 0 1,522 Gary Gill, R 80,978 DISTRICT 22 — 100% Craig Seymour, O 3,137. 2% Bradley Ems, O ' 5,362 3% ■ Frank LoBiondo, R 101,455 65% DISTRICT 2 — 100% James L. R. Lawrence Jr., D 55,975 27% AT-LARGE — 99% DISTRICT 14 — 100% DISTRICT 3 — 98% Manfre, D 40,520 28% DISTRICT 4 — 100% □ Gerald 73% □ Earl □ Rick 68% Solomon^ R* 154,346 Pomeroy, D* 119,994 52% D Jr„ D* 129,850 82% □ Ike Skollon, D* 138,351 68% James Smith, D 53,000 31% Lazio, R* 97,745 Alice : DISTRICT 23 — 100% Gary Porter, R 102,861 45% Richard Fournier, R 26,417 17% Janies Noland 32% □ Jim Saxton, R* 112,296 66%. Ross, O 5,732 4% Jr., R 66,308 i Charles Skeele Jr.; D 39,231 23% James Germalic, O 6,113 3% Richard Miller, 0 2,967 2% Arthur Croce, O 1,098 1% DISTRICT 3 — 100% DISTRICT 8 — 100%r . tr', 70% D. James Norma ■□S. Boehlert, R* 118,359 DISTRICT 15 — 100% Hill, O 2,926 2% Grill, D 76,701 40% □ Karen McCarthy, D 100,059 57% Donald Thomas, O 10,892 6% □ Peter ' DB. Collins, D* 119,328 84% Ron Freeman, R 76,807 43% DISTRICT 4 — 99% King, R* 114,787 59% John •DISTRICT 24 — 100% John 31% DePrima, O 1,756 1% ' Savage II, R 20,039 14% DISTRICT 6 — Ralph Walsh, D 48,723 100% Danny Francis. D 33,083 22% Henry Clark, O 849 1% □ □ C. Smith, R* 107,617 68% DISTRICT 4 — 100% P. A. Danner, D* 140,074 66% □ John McHugh, R' 120,205 78% Cynthia Jaquith, O 986 1% Tina 34% Arnold Kokans, 0 1,245 1% Philip Schiliro, D 64,536 37% Tucker, R ,,71,619 DISTRICT 1 — 100% Leonard Marshall, O 1,686 1% □ Daniel Frisa, R 86,613 50% DISTRICT 2S — 99% Larry Roberts, 0 651 0% DISTRICT 7 — 100% David Mann, D' 72,263 44% ' David , Rhea Jezer, D 82,186 43% — DISTRICT S — 100% Levy, 0 15,086 9% DISTRICT 16 100% James Fossard, D. 77,040 40% ■ , R 92,451 56% Vincent Garbitelli, O 5,278 DJames Walsh, R* 110,242 57% , □ John BillAuer, D 41,042 22% Dingell, D* 105,301 59% □ Melton Hancock, R* ll 10,397 57% DISTRICT 2 — 100% Ken □ 74% Robert Berkowilz, O 1,358 J DISTRICT 26— 99% Larkin, R 70,429 40% . 3% Marge Roukema, R* 139,217 ' Doug Burlison, 0 ,, 5,802 Maurice Les Mann, D 43,471 23% DISTRICT S — 100% Hinchey, D* 90,998 49% Noha Hamze, 0 . 1,962 1% Roger Bacon, O 2,851 2% DISTRICTS — 100% " ' □ Rob Porlman. R* 149,249 77% Helen 0% □ 55% > v Bob Moppert, R 89,920 48% James Hamilton, O 655 , D* 91,177 Thompson, D 49,897 27% DISTRICT 3 — 100% William Leonard, O 3,721. 2% Grant Lally, R 72,630 44% '■V. (/Thomas Kovach,'0 4,529 2% □ Bill Emerson, R* 129,728 70% □ 59% V Tony Hall, D* 104,608 — Edward Elkowitz, O 3,007 2% ,{ DISTRICT 27 w 100% 3% DISTRICT 6 100% Greg-Tfapek, O 6,410 i 24% David Westbrock, RI 71,638 41% a Jr., D' 89,049 60% DISTRICT 6 — 100% Wiljiam Lohg::i.i!r„ D 51,291 DISTRICT 9 — 100% . , DISTRICT 4 Mike Herson, R 55,235 37% □ Floyd Flake, D* 66,414 ; □Bill Paxbn.'R* '' 158,903 76% DISTRICT 1 — 99% □ Harold Volkmer, D* 98,401 51% □ Michael Uncontested Charles Dickson, O 1,771 1% D. 16,329 20% /v DISTRICT 28 — 99% Oxiey, R" John 92,452 45% : 45% Bhagwandin, R Hottinger, D Keriny Hulshof, R , 86,883 DISTRICT 5 — 100% Richard 563 0% DISTRICT 7 — 99% □ Louise 57% ■ 55% Mitchell Quinn, 0 Slaughter; D* 107,158 , R 114,101 Moore, 0 ' 8,848 5% Jarrod Tudor, D 48,914 27% Gary Rich, O 798 1% □ Thomas Manton, D* 56,608 87%, ,; Renee Davison, R 75,666 40% DISTRICT 2 —. 99% f Johanri 3% □ , R* 134,581 73% DISTRICT 7 — 99% Robert Hurley, 0 8,134 13% Clendenin, 0 6,246 □ David 118,077 ■ 52% Minge, D* DISTRICT 6 — 100% Karen Carroll, D 61,819 39% DISTRICT 8 — 100% DISTRICT 29 —'99% Gary Revier, R 103,233 45% MONTANA □ Bob DJohn La 55% , D" 86,892 49% Stan Bentz, O 6,618 3% Franks, R* 93,733 59% □ Jerrold Nadler, D* 101,693 Falce.' D* 101,573 James 43% ■ Frank Cremeans, R 90,401 51% - Cleary, O 2,178 1% David Askren, R 20,543 16% .William Miller Jr.T R 79,293 DISTRICT 3 — 100% AT'LARGC 98% Claire Patrick 2% DISTRICT 7 Greene, O , 526 0% Margaret Byrnes, O 2,847 2% Murty, O 3,372 62,193 26% □ Pat Williams, D* 49% ^ ^ 167,148 □ Dave Bob Olson, p DISTRICT 8 — 100% DISTRICT 9— 100% DISTRICT30—99% Hobson, R* Uncontested '□, R* 173,190 74% . Cy Jamison.'R , rj,145,312 42% . .< Herb 48% David 33% DISTRICT 8 y; , Klein, D* 67,879 □ Charles Schumer, D* 91,250 71% Franczyk, p 60,390 DISTRICT 4 — 100% 31,483 9% :'Steyo Kelly, P ■ Bill □ Jack 67% □ John Uncontested j \i —- Martini, R 69,886 50% James McCall, R 36,653 29% Quinh.^^.R* '•122,233 Boehner, R' □ , D* . 115,775 55% Bernard 2% DISTRICT 9 — George, O 2,297 DISTRICT 10 — 99% DISTRICT 31'^'99% 100% Dennis^Newinski, R 88,302 42% NEBRASKA DISTRICT 9 — 99% 84% □ 75% Dan Vacek, O 6,211 3% □ , D* 72,479 89% >■[ □ Amo Houghfori, R* 114,718 Marcy Kaplur, D* 117,237 n Robert Torricelli, D* 99,202 62% Amelia Parker, R 7,617 9% j; G. McManUs, O ' 21,102 16% R. Randy Whitman, FT 38,442 25% — DISTRICT S 99% - DISTRICT 1 — 100% Peter , Russo, R 57,396 36% Mildred 2% DISTRICT 10 — 100% □ M. Olav 62% Mahoney, O 1,492 Sabo, D* 121,507 Patrick Kenneth Combs, D , 37% 0% Francis 69,946 Ebel, O 759 — . Gaul, D 397c. 73,258 38% DISTRICT 11 100% 70,547 Dorothy LeGrand, R □ 63% Doug Bereuter, R* ■ 117,014 Gregory Pason, O 1,477 1% □ 59,068 89% □ Martin Hoke, R" 94,499 527o DISTRICT 6 — 100% , D" DISTRICT 10 — 99% DISTRICT?^ 100% 10% Joseph Jacobs Jr , C3 17,586 107o ■ William 50% Gary Popkin, R 6,551 Luther, D 113,766 Peter 49% □ NORTH Hoagland, D* •89,839 Donald 76% Michael CAROLINA DISTRICT 11 — 100% Tad Jude, R 113,197 50% Payne, D* 72,345 Gaffney, O 1,081 2% ■ Jon Christenseri, R 51% Jim '91,658 Ford, R 20,858 22% DISTRICT 12 — 100% □ , D' 112,914 77% DISTRICT 7 — 100% Rose DISTRICT 1 —100% DISTRICTS — 100% Monyek, O 1,518 2% □ 92% Jan->es 33,361 23% □ Collin 51% Nydia Velazquez, D' 38,324 Sykora, R Peterson, D* 108,025 Gil 21%. Maurice 1% □ Eva 66,521 61% Chapin, D '41,766 Williams, 0 586 Genevieve Clayton," D* DISTRICT 12 — Bemie Gmann, R 102,653 49% Brennah, O 2,67! 6% 100% Ted ,.. □ Bill , 79%, Barrett, R* - 153,492 DISTRICT 11 — 100% Eric Ruano-Melendez, O 650 2% Tyler, R' 42,477 39% Cynthia Ruccia, D 71,843 38% DISTRICT 8 — 100% Frank DISTRICT 2 — Herbert. D 50,036 28% DISTRICT 13 ■— 100% 106% □ , R' 118,878 62%. □ James Oberstar, D* 153,145 66% □ R. 71% , Richard Moore, D 62,108 44% Frelinghuysen, R 127,626 Tyrone Butler, D 33,456 25% DISTRICT 13 — 100% Phil Herwig, R 79,767 34%. Stuart ■ David NEVADA Bacha, O 433 0% □ , R* 93,393 71% Funderburk, R 79,666 56% □ , D" 92,535 497c. Mary Frueholz, O 1,050 1% Elisa Disimone, 0 4,539 3% DISTRICT 3100% Gregory White, R 85,763 467o "blSTRICT 1 — 100% DISTRICT 12 — 100% Martin DISTRICT 14 — 99% Lancaster, D* 65,046 47% Howard 4% MISSISSIPPI Mason, O 7,751 . ■ Waller James Bilbray, D* ' 72,232 48%, Joseph Youssouf, D 56,087 31% □ , D* 92,390 63% (Joiies Jr.; R 72,349 53% John Ryan, O 2,409 17o '■ o Dick John , 48% Zimmer, R* 68% Ensign, P 73i768 124,581 Charles Millard, R 52,754 36% DISTRicT4—106% DISTRICT 14 — 100% DISTRICT 1 — 99% - 4%, A ij... Gary. Wood, 0.. _,'.;;;;6,065 Provenzano, O 2,349 1% Thomas Leighton, 0 1,310 1 % David Price, pi -: 76,457 50% □ Thomas Sawyer. D" 95,510 52% Bill Wheeler, D 46,443 37%- ■ F; , DISTRICT 13 — DISTRICT?— T00»',:>^"^* 99% DISTRICT 15 — 100% Heinernarji.B;'' 77,770 50% Lynn IT 88,427 487c. ■ 80,108 63% Slaby, Roger Wicker, R Janet 29% □ Robert DISTRICT S Gfeesoii, D-; '■ >'65,291 Menendez, D* 67,169 71% □ Charles 73,517 96% —ji00% DISTRICT IS — 100% DISTRICT 2 — 100% Rangel, D* □ B. Vucanovichj R*,)j141,943 63% Fernando Alonso, R 23,726 25% Jose Suero,. 0 2,816 4% Saridy Sands III, D 63,105 43% Bill Buckel, D 32% ' 51,503 □ B. 66,224 53%. Thompson, D* , Steven Marshall, O ■ Richard 3%, 881 1% Buit, R' . 57% c, Lois Avery^, O, / , ,; ,6,722 DISTRICT 16 — 100% 84,580 □ , R* 110,892 68% Bill Jordan, R 48,508 39% Frank ... thbrtias Jefferson,'0''9;583 4%, Rubino, O 1,487 2% DISTRICT 6 Vince ; □ Jose Serrano, D' 57,245 98% DISTRICT 16 — 100% Thornton, 0 9,356 8% ■ Herbert Shaw, O 1,317 1% Michael Walters. 0 2% □ Howard Uncontested J. Michael DISTRICT 3 —99% 1,371 Cobje.jR? Finn, D 45,423 25% 7 DISTRICT 17 — 97% DISTRICT □ 75% □ G.V. 80,038 68% ^'98% , R' 136,375 Montgomery, D' NEW HAMPSHIRE □ Charles Dutch Dabbs, R 32%' □ , D" 66,838 74% Rose^ D* 60,692 52% DISTRICT 17 — 100% 38,516 NEW MEXICO Robert Edward Marshall. R 16,138 18% An'detsoh, R 56,612 48% □ J, Traficant Jr., D' 147,849 77% DISTRICT 4 — 100% DISTRICT 1 — 100%P' Kevin 4,945 5% DISTRICT 8 '-ii0d% Mike Meister, R □ Mike Brawley, 0 43,067 23% Parker, D* 81,316 68% DISTRICT 1 — . Bill 42,919 29%, 99% □ Bill Verge, D Ann Noonan. 0 2% Hefner. — Mike 32% 2,128 D', 62,882 52% DISTRICT 18 100% Wood, R 37,458 □ Bill Zeliff, R* 66% Peter Sherrill 97,658 Zollinger, D 39,791 27% DISTRICT — ■ 18 93% Moigani R 57,099 48% Greg DiDonato, D 88,230 47% DISTRICT 5 — 100% Merle 575 0% □ Steven Braley, O Schiff, R* 110,255 73% □ Nrta 57% DISTRICT 9 — 160% ■ Bob □ Gene 60% Lowey, D* 83,965 Ney, R 100,929 53% Taylor, D* 71,720 Paul Lannon, O 3,472 2%, DISTRICT 2 — 100% Andrew Harlzell 41% Blake, D ' 44,352 35% — 47,530 40% Jr., R 60,359 Ro^ DISTRICT 19 100% George Barlos, R Scott Tosti, 0 4,148 3%, Benjamin Chavez, D 45,381 32% □ Sue Florence O'Grady, O 2,561 2% Myhck, R - 81,409 65% , D" 89,162 43% DISTRICT 4 — 99% DISTRICT 9 — 100% Robert Cash, O '.. 4,362 3% Jay Inslee, D* 69,338 48% I Steven LaTourette, R 99,392 48% SOUTH DAKOTA Jack Brooks, D* 71,643 46% UTAH Jay Russell, O '7,910 5% ■ Doc Hastings. R 76,483 52% Jerome Brentar, 0 5,146 3% ■ Steve Stockman, R 81,353 52% DISTRICT 5 — 99% Ronald DISmtCTS 1% DISTRICT 1 — 100* Young, O 11,319 6%, AT-LARCE — 100% Daria Beenau, O 1,656 □ Uncontested Bobbie 35% Thomas Foley, D" 97,448 49% Rud Shuster, fi* □ Tim Bill Felton, O 2,145 1% Coray, D 57,583 Johnson, D* 183,038 60% 99,622 51% DISTRICTIO^ 99% . □ James Hansen, R* 104,740 65% George Nethercutt, R Jan Berkhout, DISTRICT 10 — 100% 31% R 112,097 37% Daniel Schreffler, D 50,099 DISTRICT 6 — 100% OKLAHOMA Ronald Wieczorek, 0 10,931 4% □ Lloyd Doggett, D 113,738 56% DISTRICT 2 — 100% □ 66% 36% □ Norm Dicks, D' 90,822 58% Joseph McDade, R* 105,627 A. Jo 80,382 40% Karen Shepherd, D* 66,883 3% Baylor, R 42% Albert Smith, 0 _ 5,121 46% Benjamin Gregg. R 64,648 DISTRICT 1 — 100% Michael'Brandes, O 2,334 1% ■ Enid Waldholtz, R , 85,479 37% .DISTRICT 11 — 100% . 1% 18% DISTRICT 7 — 99% Stuart Price, D 63,753 TENNESSEE Jeff Davis, O 2,579 MerritI Cook, O 34,174 ■ 63% □ Paul 67% 1% □ Jim McDermott, D" 1 27,758 76% □ Steve Largent, R 107,085 Kanjorski, D* 100,956 Jeff Hill, 0 2,953 DISTRICT 3 — 100% J. Andrew Podolak, R 50,389 33% 59% Keith Harris, R 39,791 24% DISTRICT 2 ~ 100% Y □ Bill - DISTRICT 1 — 100% DISTRICT 11 — 100% Orton, D* 91,091 48% DISTRICT 12 — 100% 40% DISTRICT 8 — 99% Virgil Cooper, D 75,943 J. Carr Christian, D 34,591 25%. □ Chet Edwards, D* 76,589 59% Dixie Th'ompson, R 61,377 52% □ 117,783 69% 1% Jim ■ 33% ■ Tom Coburn, R 82.479 John.Murtha, Qr O James H. 101,508 73% Jim 52,824 41% Barbara Greenway, O 1,731 Wyrick, D 57,779 31% Guillen, R* Broyles, R William Chotiy. R . 53,113 □ Jennifer Dunn, R* 118,572 DISTRICT 3 — 100% 3,563 3% DISTRICT 12 — 100% ■ George Mauer, P □ ■ 74%v' DISTRICT 13 — 100% 69% DISTRICT 9 — 100% Bill Brewster, D* 115,731 DISTRICT 2 — 100% □ Pete Geren, D* 96,576 M. 88,173 45% Mike Kreidler, D* 61,642 49% Barrel Tallant, R 41,147 26%:, Me7vinsky."D* □ John Duncan Jr., 127,831 91%. E. Anderson Jr., R 43,957 31% 49% R* VERMONT^ ■ Jon Fox, R 96,431 5%. Randy Tate, R 64,434 51% DISTRICT 4 — 100% Randon Krieg, 6,783 DISTRICT 13 — 100% 7,212 4% O David 67,23^ '43%; LeeHustead, p 6,612 5% 63,597 44% AT-LARCE Perryman, D 2% Greg Samples, D Bill Sarpalius, D* . 3,218 ■ J.C. 80,251 Frank Szabo, t) 56% John Carroll,- R >■ 95,995' 47% Watts, R 52%. DISTRICT 3 — 100% ■ William Thornberry, R 79,326 Bill Tiffee, 0 7,913 5%> pl^TRICT 14 — 100%; 46% □ Betnie Sanders, 0* 103,201 50% Randy Button, D 73,602 DISTRICT 14 — 100% □ WiMiam 64%. Carole 2,992 1% DISTRICT 5 — 100% Coynei'.D*,;;j;i04,600 ■ Zach 84,346 52%, □ 56% Banus, P WEST VIRGINIA 33% Wamp, R Greg Laughlin, D' 85,899 1% □ Ernest Istook, R' 136,877 78% John Clark, R , 53,250 Thomas Morretl, O 1,927 1% 44% Annette Larson, 0 1,465 1% Jim Deals, R 68,791 22% Paul &herrer, p ; 1,744 1% Jack 2,397 1% Tommy Keitti, 38,270 Richard Sims, P 1,497 Rogers, 0 DISTRICT 1 — 100% O 2%. DISTRICT IS — 100% , Edward Stewart, O 3,744 DISTRICT 6 — 100% DISTRICT 4 — 100% □ E. K.de la Garza, D* 61,889 59% □ Alan Mollohan, D" 102,605 70% DISTRICT IS—100% Jeffrey Tollett, D 45,399 30% Jeff 60,800 42%. Tom 39% 43,291 30% 48% Whorley, D Haughey, R 40,755 Sally Riley, R 70% □ Paijl McHale..P* ';-71,75l 56%. VIRGINIA □ Frank Lucas, R* 106,961 ■ Van 81,328 2% — 48% Hilleary, R John Hamilton, 0 1,806 DISTRICT 2 100% Janfies Yeager. R vi ■ 71,545 J. Patrick 1,954 1%. 5%. Lyons, O DISTRICT 16 — 100% □ Bob Wise, D" 90,063 Victor Mazziotti.-O' 7,228 DISTRICT 1 — 100% DISTRICT S — 100% □ Ronald Coleman, D* 49,815 57% Samuel Cravotta, R 51,224 36% DISTRICT 16 — 100% 44,804 23% □ Bob Clement, D* 94,005 60% 43% Mary Sinclair, D — 30% Bobby Ortiz, R 37,409 DISTRICT 3 100% William Chertok, D 47,569 □ H. Batemah, R* 142,927 74% John Osljorne, R 60,710 39% □ Nick 64% 70%. DISTRICT 17 — 100% Rahall II, D* 74,344 □ Rotiert Walker, R*. 109,487 954 1%. Matt Voorhees, 0 4,365 2% DISTRICT 1 — S0% Lloyd Botway, O □ , D 83,486 54% Ben Waldmah, R 41,972 36% DISTRICT 17 0%, DISTRICT 2 — 100% 50% , Elizabetfi Purse, D* 96,125 Chuck Lokey, O 642 Phil Boone, R 72,000 46% □ □ 78,524 59% Bill Witt, R 85,652 45% George Geka's, R* Uncontested DISTRICT 0 —. 100% Owen Pickett, D* DISTRICT IS — 100% 41% Brewster Gillett, O 5,071 3% DISTRICT 18 — 100% 51% Jim Chapman, R 54,623 □ Bart Gordon, D* 90,720 □ Sheila Lee, D 84,802 72% 2% ■ Michael — Daniel Wilson, O 4,181 Doyle, D 101,396 55% Steve Gill, R 88,644 49%. 28,156 24% DISTRICT 3 100% John Jerry Burley, R 79%, DISTRICT 2 — 97% McCarty, R 83,714 45% 1% □ Robert Scott, D* 108,080 WISCONSIN DISTRICT 7 — 100% George Hollenbeck, O 1,169 40% DISTRICT 19 Thomas Ward, R 28,029 21% Sue Kupillas, D 71,394 Harold Byrd, D 65,777 39%. J. Larry Snellings, P 4,278 4% 56% □ William 60%, DISTRICT 4 — 100% DISTRICT 1 — 100% □ Wes Cooley, R 100,156 Goodlihg, Rr Uncontested □ Ed Bryant, 101,733 DISTRICT 19 49% 7,057 4% DISTRICT 20 — 100% 1%, □ Norman Sisisky, D* 115,236 62%, Peter Barca, D* 82,537 Gary Sublett, O Tom Jeanette, O 1,942 □ , R' Uncontested □ A. 38%, ■ Mark Neumann, R 83,935 50% DISTRICT 3 — 100% Frank Mascara, D 95,340 53% DISTRICT 8 — 100% George Sweet III, R 71,176 DISTRICT 20 — 100% Edward Kozak. 3,052 2% □ Ron 132,271 74%. M. McCormick, R 83,900 477o 64%, DISTRICT S — 99% O Wyden, D* □ John Tanner, D* 96,513 □ Henry Gonzalez, D* 59,176 62% Everett 31,183 18% DISTRICT 21 — 100% 36%. □ 94,955 53% DISTRICT 2 — 100% Hall, R Neal Morris, R 55,100 Carl Bill Colyer, R 35,876 38% L.F. Payne,'D* Mark Brunelle, O 10,738 6% Bill Leavens, 47% Thomas Hecht, D 55,398 '29% D' 84,817 47% DISTRICT 9 — 100% George Landrith III, R 83,135 2% DISTRICT 21 — 99% 69% Gene Nanni, O 3,437 □ Philip English, R 89,367 49% 58% DISTRICT 6 □ Scott Kiug, R" 133,802 □ Harold Ford, D* 94,804 □ Lamar Smith, R* 158,302 90% Arthur *. J. Schumacher,-O 1,356 1% DISTRICT 4 — 97% Drew, O 6,383 4% Rod DeBerry, R 69,224 42% 10% □ Robert Goodlatte, R Uncontested Kerry Lowry, O 18,059 John 2,669 '1% □ Peter DeFazio, D* 135,066 DISTRICT 7 — 100% StumpI, 0 DISTRICT 22 — 100% 32% — John Newkirk, R 63,779 24% □ Thomas Bliley Jr., R* 176,650 84% DISTRICT 3 100% Scott Cunningham, D 38,823 41% DISTRICT 5 — 100% Gerald 33,123 16% Harvey Slower, D 65,755 □ Tom DeLay, R* 119,296 74% Berg, 0 Catherine Webber, D 88,213 49% RHODE ISLAND □ Steve Gunderson, R" 89,271 56% 2% DISTRICTS — 100%. 48% Gregory Pepper, O 4,016 Chuck Lee. 0 2,822 2% , R 85,823 □ James Moran Jri, D' 116,602 59% DISTRICT 1 — 100% DISTRICT 23 — 100% Jon 3% DISTRICT 1 — 99% Mark Weinhold, 0 2,234 1% Zimmer, O 6,218 38% 77,088 39% □ James Chapman, D* 86,420 55% Rolando Rios, D 43,727 Kyle McSlarrow, R, ■ Patrick Kennedy, D 86,904 54% 1% DISTRICT 4 — 100% 41% 62% R. Ward Edmonds,' (D 1,808 Kevin Mike Blankenship, R 63,884 □ Henry Bonilla, R* 72,841 54% Vigilante, R 73,527 46% William Jones, 0 ■ . 830 0% □ Gerald Kleczka, D* 93,801 Thomas Mosser, P 6,001 4% DISTRICT 24 — 100% DISTRICT 2 — 99% 7 Tom 77,701 DISTRICT 9 — 100% Reynolds, R DISTRICT 2 — 100% □ Martin 65,177 53% □ John Reed, D* ' '115,246 68% Frost, D" James Hause, 0 2,574 47% □ F. Boucher, D* 102,329 59% • □ Charles Wilson, D* 87,493 57% Ed Harrison, R 58,039 A. John Elliot, R 53,937 32% — Steve Fast, R 72,021 41% DISTRICT 5 100% Donna Peterson, R 65,904 43% DISTRICT 2S — 100% DISTRICT 1 — 99% □ Tom Barrett, D' 88,040 62% 52% DISTRICT 10 — 100% □ Thomas Foglietta, D* 97,283 81% DISTRICT 3 — 100% □ Ken Bentsen, D 61,945 S. 51,443 36% 45% □ Frank Wolf, R* 150,42r 88% Hollingshead, R 19% □ Sam Johnson, R" 157,011 91% Gene Fontenot, R 53,309 1,576 1% Roger Gordon, R 22,553 Alan 13,320 8% David Schall, O Tom Donahue, 0 15,611 9% Sarah Klein-Tower, O 2,C^ 2% Ogden, 0 DISTRICT 2 — 98% SOUTH CAROLINA 5%. DISTRICT 6 Robert 1% Robert Rilee, 0 8,147 □ Chaka Fattah, D ,117,754 86% DISTRICT 4 — 100% Lpckharl, P 1,187 Uncontested DISTRICT 11 —99% □ Thomas Petri. R* Lawrence Walson, R 19,849 14% DISTRICT 1 — 100% □ Ralph Hall, D* 99,315 597., DISTRICT 26 — 100% Leslie 80,248 46% DISTRICT 7 — 100% Robert Bartter 47,849 32%. David 67,264 40% LeEarl Ann 22% Byrne, D* DISTRICT 3 — 99% Jr., D Bridges, R Bryant, D 39,765 54% ' ■ Thomas Davis III, R 91,057 52% □ David Obey, D* 97,184 Steven 1% □ Dick 76% ' O Mark Sanford, R 97,876 66% Rothacker, 0 2,376 ' □ Robert Borski, D* 92,013 63% Armey, R* 135,397 3% Scott West. R 81,697 46% Robert Alfred Adask, 0 2,030 1% G. Cruickshank, 0 5,023 James Hasher, R 54,723 37% Payne, 0 1,836 1% DISTRICTS — 100% DISTRICT 8 — 100% DISTRICT 2 □ John 61,342 50%. DISTRICT 27 — 100% DISTRICT 4 — 100% Bryant, D* Stan Gruszynski, D 65,218 36% □ Uncontested , R 58,608 48% □ Solomon Ortiz, D* 64,454 59% □ Ron Klink, D* 118,907 64% Floyd Spence, R* 114,021 64% 0%. 41% WASHINGTON □ Toby Roth, R* Ed 66,391 36% DISTRICT 3 — 100% Regina Arashvand, O 546 Erol Stone, R 44,200 Peglow, R DISTRICT 9 Noel 876 1% DISTRICT 5 James Bryan Jr., D 59,846 40%. Kopala, 0 DISTRICT 28 — 100% DISTRICT 1 — 100% □ J. Sensenbrenner Jr., R" Uncontested ■ 90,061 60% Barbara 1,794 1 % □ Frank 73,900 71% □ William Clinger Jr., R* Uncontested Lindsey Graham, R Morgan, 0 Tejeda, D* 28% Maria Cantwell, D* 80,948 . 49% DISTRICT 4 — 100% DISTRICT 6 — 100% David Slatter, R 28,745 DISTRICT 6 — 100% 44,394 22% 2% ■ Rick White, R 82,912 51% □ Tim Holden, D* 89,184 57% Jerry Fowler, D 39,389 26%. Terry Jesmore, D Stephan Rothstein, O 1,597 76%. DISTRICT 2 — 100%~ Frederick Levering, R 67,388 43% □ Bob Inglis, R* 109,613 74%, □ Joe Barton, R* 152,011 DISTRICT 29 — 100% 2% 73% Harriet Spanei, 76,295 46% WYOMING DISTRICT S — 100% Bill Baird, P 4,687 □ Gene Green, D* 44,090 D DISTRICT 7 — 100% Harold 15,948. 27% ■ Jack Metcalf, R 89,765 54% Sara Nichols, D 59,777 30% □ John Spratt, D* 76,966 52%. DISTRICT 7 Eide, R DISTRICT 3 — 99% AT-LARGE — 99% □ Bill Uncontested DISTRICT 30 — 100% □ Curt Weldon, R* 137.177 70% Larry Bigham, R 70,314 48%. Archer, R* 73% Jolene Unsoeld, D* 74,713 45% Bob Schuster, D •80,628 41% DISTRICT 6 — 100% DISTRICTS — 100% □ E. B. Johnson, D* 73,166 DISTRICT 8 — 100% 26% ■ Linda Smith, R 86,072 52% □ Barbara Cubin, R 103,952 53% 27% □ James Clylourn, D* 88,700 64%. □ Jack Fields Jr., R* 147,890 92% Lucy Cain, R 25,848 John Murray, D 45,057 Dave Dawson, 0 Russ 8% Ken 1,728 2% Caitlin Carlson, 0 5,661 3% 11,792 6% □ Jim Greenwood, R* 110,239 66% Gary McLeod, R 50,225 36% Klecka, P 12,752 Ashby, O WWION

Stinc0

pte, piiliUc Other i^ouslng rnsfdonta and MUD popntollons thn< already serves office houalng nsslslcncc require beenuac nf ptiystcnl «.*jd acclnl |}48y wkjyce Pr tea group; otheK MikUQioH came will cnuscdhy comprteallons TMea on the heela suffer IIiVMlDii." ' of b Tlic shift In totui "recent • delays Some dollars In Tho atafTer fice secretary p.ald the nciv Hcpwbiicanc In waa SI which there noted that of AIDS Of¬ Willi to Congress otUUofl less for 1990, HUD since "wtll know vr(iy cbe fori the hot rcs(xjn.*ilWe for Houaiug be of eldedy end Ibouslng gram ororatcd a |>ro- the Itoosing mkI I>epartnicnt $1 disabled and ciUod grim nod HOrWA pro- nvint bas tfrfun Dcvelcp- tlca for Housing Oppottnni- other AIDS crented » new ThbmUlionxnareforthohomelcas."ihin In Persons VVIrli reinicd functlnnr houalng- AUDS OtHcc of ho HOPVVA. AIDS, or at HUD." even said, funding occurred, MOPWA was Mi: cervices thouuft tts avcA iluiugli 5lS6 million funded at Ctiavi-oa soid alraidy IMW "dramatic there is a in flical 199d the ho believes .abloslnoQ been ewil- need for $18S and at new office wtis 1990aixl the elcterfr end l^sdag for tho mlllloit Is the cause nocessary "bo- hM neUtibr eew olTlce year. current nsoil of the unhiue been Mc hondicttpped.'* .. tUiker adld • ' riera with liousins bar- funded.' authorized nor hd Is In light of a wlilcn about YtUD cohcettied recent report H1V/A1I>S persona with Critics Also 1 onihe "iiarcdlng out tfatkma? by (he an foccd. nnd set as jAjr KUDIi bails of housing Aeodomy of of tlio becmisc Ida pUn to It a Public Ad- S/K)0 also <. mfnbtmtlon that lelallortslTip vouchers apcnu ^cctaUUness.. AS deicribed tntf 0*1(1 the between Imus- rodcmlly provldlna to poiUtcalfy "too MUD health of cuhiltlbxd pull cut 5,000 arWirory ctimbersome" ho Icig With persons tlv- tlicbmnblcsa vrUlt InaslR]! for units (Cor dered, won¬ those AIDS will pattcnMl AIDS "Why do we bacd a cpudltkms." funlier far tncon Avhen aamo Oirtce of AI03 special MUD delays cth^c fiQvo been people may Utxislng in otftclofs people booiokss walling in itno Mo added: 1994?" there's nidtnoyrlcdgts Unit afraadV yoars." • • " for Iud "Our nmhlng In the Touch cri. .willing for such AIDS vletlnis rtading la that meof^ MUD deport- "At A senior yrtilvout niipropriatlons hlU this roa(]^ have a housing al- for fiscal Inc iuncturvim AIDS siafTer wIk» Repuhtlcart House priority" In 19V5, which waa oITTca ts hous- requested rccolvln g I terms of nearly 530 cut noted thai lUO Assistance. ntllUon. toaUihniont unwarnntcd....of Ea^ anonymity Tito italfer earmarked spedftcaHy CHneros HUDSocrctnry charged for n new iKotttd caine pow.progrimc created lite Henry heopi that MUD A1D3 liutis- through th« AIDS Offtco of etarting up Ing oITlca. Out Mr. slcnnl at tlque vartoiu "Ixni- Ctsncioa told prucess" said congrea- AIDS IfotialRg llic progromt Mr. MuDnde tlte H. Kcp. urging of core wl»ei» nuiv ofltco wns llakcn Hlchard advocacy prog rami fhoy have catot>Ushed toulstcAQ nounced ll groups ond an¬ thuv tliould be using monihet' of a Riq^bllcon. n at a recent ing attoniion pay¬ Bourcoa." "existing rc- {louso rcronco In prcai con- to, vfilch arc with luhoommcttce San porata straits." la dcs- juiiadlcllon over "Ihlh to Frat>ciacc\ And while pcogrMua. moat IIUD 1dm. and In a tlUO owiUa , new he'll letter last reau- Aic nlTlctJ," tlie create a month to (lioi'lzilloii by Ihtker nuied "I sUfTer Joseph M. Uep. Congress, Dllt UK- that the giicss wtf giumbfed. McDihIc, tniirtln. oaunceniCBt of an- idKitilu also nority incmhor rnnklng mi¬ usahtant IhLi now cfa) nun have n spe- of the congressional scciciary for issfit homeless afTtca to ufflce fur propriations House Ap¬ and intergoveni- people with women with hlraclal mootnl AtOS nude ncros said Commlltoc, Mr. Cla- relations at ludleroui.'* eWIdrcn.,.; It's llOPWA la served; "IVv MUD. ob¬ of Iw-il cue feet wc have aev-erul HUD to orlginalo nullmrhy "serve tho prugrcnia that our own ufTice necda of tuxneteas lures, within xlruc- pco- 1(1 a exfuttng reaniii cca, mnntJur we sec Hi." PRESS RELEASE

I60LDEH 6ATE I MAY 13, 1994

Contact: Edward Zold 415/ 252-8956 Tom Maroney 415/ 255-0471

AIDS ACTIVISTS ISSUE ULTIMATUM TO C.D.C. DIRECTOR: ACT NOW OR RESIGN

AIDS activists from across the country issued an ultimatum today to Dr. James Curran, Director of HIV/ AIDS at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: act now or resign.

The activists, all members of ACT UP, are angry over C.D.C.'s "Prevention Marketing Initiative"(P.M.I.), a social marketing campaign promoting condom use to young people ages 18-25. P.M.I, fails entirely to target gay, lesbian and bisexual youth.

C.D.C. surveillance data indicates that gay, lesbian and bisexual youth are at highest risk for HIV infection. Activists claim that the exclusion of gay, lesbian and bi youth from P.M.I, was motivated by C.D.C.'s fears of agitating right wing organizations and individuals in congress.

Activists are now demanding social marketing campaign targeting gay, lesbian and bisexual youth with safe sex images, as well as additional revenues for six cities to develop social marketing campaigns for HIV prevention that are specific to their communities.

Activists have given Dr. Curran until the end of May to announce C.D.Cs intention to comply with the demands. They have promised a nation wide campaign calling for his resignation if the demands are not met.

"This situation is totally outrageous", says Matthew Sharp of ACT UP/ Golden Gate. "What in the world is the point of spending MILLIONS of dollars on HIV prevention campaigns that don't target people at risk?"

30

519 Castro St; P.O. Box 93 ; San Francisco, CA ; 94114 ; 4151252-9200 ACT UP/ GOLDEN GATE 519 CASTRO ST, ^93 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 (415) 252- 9200 (415) 252-8956

May 11, 1994

Dr, James Curran, M.D., M.P.H. Assistant Surgeon General Associate Director for HIV/AIDS Centers For Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton rd. NE Mailstop E-25 26 Executive Park Atlanta, OA 30329

Dr. Curran: ¥e are disturbed and upset by several aspects of the Prevention Marketing Initiative (P.M.I.), your agency's social marketing campaign targeting young people engaging in unsafe sexual practices. Our concerns at this time are:

1. P.M.I., a social marketing campaign designed to aid in preventing sexual transmission of HIV among young people (ages 18-25) fails to directly address the group of young adults at highest risk for HIV infection (according to CDC data) gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

2. P.M.I, was developed by CDC without significant input from infected or affected communities. Such a massive campaign, designed at considerable expense to the federal government, would surely be more effective if such input had been sought.

Thirteen years and 250,000 deaths into this epidemic, we find the failure of yourself and your agency to target those at highest risk with thoughtful and effective prevention efforts to be inexplicable and outrageous. ¥e are taxpayers and valuable individuals. ¥e have made our skills, talents, agencies, and time totally available to CDC to help prevent HIV from destroying another generation of young people, Your agency, in turn, has used our resources and then failed to include messages for our youth in your largest prevention campaign to date.

Dr. Curran, please be advised that WE ARE NOT WILLING TO ALLOW YOUR AGENCY TO SHIRK ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL YOUNG PEOPLE. YOU ARE PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TARGET ALL COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY HIV/AIDS, INCLUDING GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL YOUTH.

Your failure to fulfill your responsibilities to gay, lesbian and bisexual youth or respond to pleas from our community to do so has left us no option but to make the following requests;

1. CDC should design a component of P.M.I, targeting gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. This shall include television spots and print advertising. Such spots must include images of gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. CDC should convene a working group of HIV infected and affected gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, community based HIV prevention specialists, and CDC staff to develop this campaign, Further, CDC should hold meetings with managers/decision makers from media organizations (as you have done for the existing portion of P.M.I,) in order to persuade these organizations to air and print the ads.

2. CDC should make an additional $6 million available to six targeted cities (to be divided evenly) to do community specific social marketing campaigns. These cities are: New York, , Miami,Los Angeles, San Francisco and ,

We are hereby demanding that you announce your intention to comply with the above requests, with a detailed time-line for compliance, by May 30, 1994.

The above requests, as we have indicated, are the last resort of a community that has been devastated by the HIV/AIDS epidemics and excluded from prevention efforts designed and implemented by your agency. We are not willing to witness the total devastation of another generation of young people in our communities. Ergo, your failure to comply with these requests will leave us no option but to publicly call for your resignation.

We will be available to provide any guidance and input to your agency on specific aspects of these requests prior to your May 30 deadline. Please call us with any questions.

Sincerely, ACT UP/ Golden Gate

ACT UP/ Milwaukee

ACT UP/ Baltimore

ACT UP/ New Orleans

ACT UP/ Cleveland

ACT UP/ Minnesota

ACT UP/ Philadelphia

ACT UP/ San Francisco County

AIDS Policy Project (San Francisco, CA)

cc: Dr. David Satcher Dr. Steve Morin Hon. Rep. Nancy Pelosi Dr. Philip Lee Christine Gebbie, Federal AIDS Policy Coordinator Sen. Barbara Boxer Sen. Diane Fienstein Congress, House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee (all members) Larry Kramer Mike Shriver, Mobilization Against AIDS Pat Dunn, San Francisco AIDS Foundation National Gay and Lesbian Task Force CDC Advisory Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection (AH Members) CDC PREVENTION MARKETING INITIATIVE FACT SHEET

CDC launched the Prevention Marketing Initiative (P.M.I.) in January 1994. P.M.I, is a social marketing campaign designed as part of a comprehensive effort to prevent sexual transmission of HIV among young adults ages 18-25.

P.M.I, consists of six 30 second television commercials. The social marketing approach involves repeatedly presenting condom use (and one spot presenting abstinence) as socially responsible behavior.

ACT UP/ Golden Gate believes that the social marketing of condom use is a good idea. P.M.I, television commercials reach young people in rural areas and secondary cities, often completely isolated from prevention campaigns common in large urban areas.

P.M.I., however, is highly problematic, for the following reasons:

1. P.M.I, fails entirely to specifically address gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. According to CDC data, this segment of the population is the fastest growing risk group for HIV infection. A recent study in San Francisco indicated a seuro-prevalance rate of 14.6% among young gay and bisexual men ages 17-22. CDC's exclusion of gay, lesbian and bisexual youth stems, presumably, from fears of agitating right wing organizations and reactionary individuals in the U.S. Congress. 2. P.M.I, was designed by CDC with virtually no community input. As a result, many individuals and prevention service providers have serious concerns about P.M.I.'s methodology and effectiveness in targeting their communities. 3. P.M.I, does not specifically target young people under the age of 18 with safer sex messages. Educational consultants participating in CDC meetings raised concerns about 18 being too late to change the attitudes and behavior of young people about sex. The requests that we are making at this time are simple: 1. CDC should create a segment of P.M.I, targeting gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. CDC and community resources, including ACT UP chapters nationwide, should be involved in insuring that television networks air P.M.I, spots with gay, lesbian, and bisexual images. 2. CDC should turn over an additional $6 million to six targeted cities (to to be divided evenly) to do community specific social marketing campaigns. Large urban areas with extremely diverse communities need additional funds to insure that all segments of the population are targeted with prevention messages.

CALL CDC TODAY AND URGE THEM TO GRANT THESE REQUESTS AND TAKE ACTION!!

GOLDEN GATE DEMAND ACTION FROM CDC

PHONE ZAP RECENTLY, CDC UNVEILED THEIR PREVENTION MARKETING INITIATIVE (P.M.I.), AN HIV PREVENTION CAMPAIGN TARGETING YOUNG PEOPLE AGES 18-25. DR. JAMES CURRAN, DIRECTOR OF HIV/AIDS, AND DR. DAVID SATCHER, CDC DIRECTER, DECIDED TO LEAVE YOUNG PEOPLE AT HIGHEST RISK FOR HIV (GAY, LESBIAN, AND BISEXUAL YOUTH)OUT OF PMI!

NOW COME ON!! WHAT'S THE POINT OF DOING HIV PREVENTION CAMPAIGNS THAT DON'T TARGET PEOPLE AT RISK?

CALL DR. JAMES CURRAN: (404) 639-0900 DR. DAVID SATCHER: (404) 639-3291

FAX CURRAN (404)639-0973 SATCHER (404)639-2657

TELL THEM THAT YOU DEMAND: A SOCIAL MARKETING CAMPAIGN TARGETING GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL YOUTH WITH HIV PREVENTION MESSAGES!! LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU WANT COMMUNITY INPUT ON IT!! LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU EXPECT THEM TO ANNOUNCE SUCH A CAMPAIGN BY MAY 30!!!

CALL CDC TODAY!!!

ACT UP! FIGHT BACK! FIGHTAIDS! ACT UP rnincM chTi SAMPLE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AB 260 **SEND BY OCT. 5TH!!**

September 1993

The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor, State of California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SUPPORT FOR AB 260 (W. BROWN)

Dear Governor Wilson:

On behalf of I am writing to express our strong support for AB 260, legislation to establish a clean needle and syringe exchange pilot project in order to halt the spread of HIV among injection drug users (IDU's) in California.

When viewed as part of a comprehensive program targeting IDUs, needle exchange is an effective HIV prevention intervention. Just last year, after reviewing numerous studies of needle exchange programs in the United States and abroad, the National Commission on AIDS urged the elimination of regulations and laws that block implementation of needle exchange. According to the Commission, "fears that needle and syringe exchange and distribution programs might encourage drug use and a new class of drug injectors have not materialized."

In addition, I am confident that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluation of needle exchange programs, soon to be released, will address any concerns you may have regarding the efficacy of clean needle exchange.

Needle exchange is supported by most of the major public health groups in California, including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, the California Conference of Local Health Officers, County Drug Program Administrators, the California Pharmacists Association, and numerous HIV service organizations across the state. Numerous states have already passed legislation implementing pilot programs, most recently in .

As a local option bill - only those communities with significant local support would be able to apply for authorization from the Department of Health Services - AB 260 represents a modest, but significant step forward in our state's fight against HIV.

I urge you to sign into law this important life-saving measure.

Sincerely,

Name Agency INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING PHONE TREE

1 - Call the phone numbers assigned to you.

2 - Say, "Hi, I'm ****** from ACTUP-Golden Gate. We're setting up a phone tree, and I have a few questions for you."

3 - Explain to the person what a phone tree is: It is a system for notifying people of ACTUP actions, phone zaps, fax zaps, letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, etc.

4 - Ask person if she wants to be part of the phone tree and receive notification of such events.

5 - Ask if she is wiUing to make calls, to have five (or more) phone numbers assigned to her. Each time the phone tree is activated, she would get called, be given the information about the particular action/zap/boycott, etc. She would then call five (or more) people to pass on the information. When calls were completed, she would cil the phone tree activator and report that her calls have been made.

6 - If person agrees to make calls, ask if she is able to make long-distance calls (should the need arise).

7 - If person has agreed to make calls (long distance or not), tell ther that she will be given her assigned phone numbers within a couple of weeks.

8 - If person has not agreed to make calls, but only wants to receive calls, tell her that we hope to activate the phone tree within a couple of weeks.

9 - Remind person of ACTUP-Golden Gate's general body meetings on Tuesdays at 7:00 at 539 Hayes Street, San Francisco.

10 - Thank person - Make date with person if appropriate - Say goodbye. sm.-. Blacks and AIDS: the Wages of Silence

»LACK America's response to black Americans at large, the killer epidemic or how a myopic )to the AIDS epidemic has first to begin critical advocacy insistence on the right to priva¬ been much like that of a chiid for community-wide education cy fuels the grossly distorted besieged by imagined demons and prevention programs as perception that black people, in the dark: To lie still and re¬ well as better access to health by and large, remain unaffect¬ main quiet is assumed to be an care and experimental treat¬ ed, or worse, that AIDS is some¬ effective defense against the ments. thing you're not supposed to terror that, talk about publicly. hopefully, will dis¬ But mainstream black appear by day. America, because of the power¬ For the delusion of self-pro- The nightmare of AIDS, of ful role of the church and a tecdon, however, this conspira¬ course, is no fiction of the mind general historic aversion to cy of silence exacts a terrible but one of America's, indeed public discussions of black sex¬ price: It perpetuates the invisi¬ the world's, most devastating uality, remained publicly indif¬ bility of AIDS in black commu¬ modem realities. Not surpris¬ ferent to the disease, seeing nities, reinforcing the danger¬ ingly, despite pervasive denial, AIDS as simply the wages of ous myUi of black immunity, black Americans have suffered sexual sin. At the same time, while exacerbating the shock, fear and and are dying in this epidemic black gay men warned of the loathing many still feel in alarmingly disproportionate inescapable wages of silence; whenever they confront the hu¬ and ever-worsening numbers. oiur refusal to acknowledge and man face of AIDS, especially talk frankly about real black be¬ when it is black. Denial and silence, never¬ havior — homosexual, bisexual This nightmare will end on¬ theless, persist as the preferred and straight — was, in the face ly when we wake up to total defense mechanisms for black of the epidemic, suicide. impact of AIDS on our lives and individuals and communities begin to The poison of homophobia understand and edu¬ struggling to cope. cate ourselves about the diverse thus afflicted not Just gay men sexualities that exist in the But now that the reality of but paralyzed the entire black world. Without this change, the AIDS in the black community is community, rendering us time monster virus will most certain¬ finally beginning to emerge and again unable to speak or act ly continue to kill, from the closet, black gay men against the inevitable encroach¬ its equally lethal accomplice our entrench¬ in particular—the primary suf¬ ment of the virus. ferers of the disease among ed, communal silence. Much Lot Angelet Timet black Americans — are being newspaper print has been devoted to the problemat¬ muscled aside at the closet door Marlon T. Riggs, director of "Tongues and thrust ic ethics of Journalists probing conveniently out of Untied/' o PBS documerttory on bhck the public spotlight. intrusively into Arthur Ashe's private life. Few, however, have goys, teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley. The painful irony^f this sit¬ questioned the no le^s troubling The Question Man uation is that we were the first ethics of Ashe's prolonged pub¬ lic silence in the face of this- Is on vacation to wake up to the threat of AIDS