Conference back40::soapbox

    One month before the November election, the Democrats introduced this
    very legislation in the House.  It passed by a vote of (something like)
    431-4.  It went to the Senate, where -- get this -- Senate Republicans
    blocked it.
    
    What hypocrisy!  What cynicism!

    
    -1
    
    so, what exactly was this legislation supposed to do?  in his speeches
    last week, newt was emphasizing the need to force legislators to obey
    their own laws.  i doubt if the target of these comments was the new
    republican majority in the senate.  
    
    any details?
    
    bill
    
    

    
    RE: .1
    
    Okay Steve,
    
      Supply some of the details.... okay? I do believe that the hypocrisy
    was on the part of the Dems as the penalties/fines/whatever were to be
    levied by themselves? I'm not too sure about that, but I know you'll
    supply all the details... right?
    
    
    
    Andy
    

    Wordy:
    
    Funny how legilation that needed only a majority vote to get passed, as
    opposed to 3/5, was blocked in the lame duck congress by "those
    terrible Republicans..."
    
    I also need your reference or source of where you get your
    smoke/mirrors

I got this in mail recently.  The "I" is not "me".
    
    Here's a list (with some commentary) of laws Congress exempts 
themselves 
    from.  I obtained this list, the most updated one I have seen, in
        Congress:America's Privileged Class by H. Lon Henry
                Copyright 1994
        Prima Publishing
        P.O. Box 1260BK
        Rocklin, CA  95677
        (916) 786-0426
    
    I will be posting follow-ups on Congressional fraud, waste, etc., 
from 
    this book and other sources.
    
    "Congressional Exemptions and the Ethical Consequence"
    
    *Social Security Act of 1933*
        Congress just began paying payroll taxes in the 1980s.  Too bad 
        Zoe Baird didnt run for Congress! :)
    
    *The National Labor Relations Act of 1935*
    
    *The Minimum Wage Act of 1963*
        Congress rarely pays minimum wage to its employees. (Can you say 
        hypocrisy, boys and girls?)
    
    *The Equal Pay Act of 1963*
        Congress is allowed to be sexist!
    
    *The Civil Rights Act of 1964*
        
    *The Freedom of Information Act of 1966*
        
    *The Age Discrimination Act of 1967*
    
    *The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970*
    
    *The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1970*
        So, Congress is not an equal opportunity employer.
    
    *Title IX - Higher Education Act of 1972*
        
    *The Rehabilitation Act of 1973*    
    (superseded by the *Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990*)
        The ADA gave congressional employees the right to make a 
        complaint, but still prevents litigation.
        
    *The Age Discrimination Act Amendments of 1975*
        This act moved mandatory retirement age for Federal employees to 
        70. 
    
    *The Ethics in Government Act of 1978*
        A.k.a. Independent Counsel Act
    
    *The Conflict of Interest Laws*
        Allows Congressmen, unlike other officials, to lobby and deal 
        with the government immediately upon retirement.
    
    *The Sunshine Act*
    
    *The Inspector General Act*
    
    *The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988*
    
    
    

	Steve, can you provide any details to the bill that the repubs blocked?
I'd like to see if it's the same bill that the repubs want. If it is, then it
clearly does show in this case the repubs are hypocrites.


Glen

    While this is, in principle, a good idea, I have to wonder how it will
    be enforced and what impact it will have on the balance of powers. 
    After all, the Department of Justice is in the executive branch; since
    Congress passes only federal laws, any failure to comply would be a
    federal crime.

    I'll admit term limitations wasn't at the head of my list for things
    needing change and I still don't see the need.  We all saw the best
    way to enact term limitations on 8-NOV-1994 :-)
    
    No matter which side of the political fence you reside, if everyone
    would get off their sorry butts, do their homework and THEN vote,
    we wouldn't need term limitations as written law.
    
    

    All I know at present is that George Mitchell, on camera, complained
    that the Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate after it
    passed the House in October 1994 with only 4 votes against.  This was
    on "This Week With David Brinkey" 11/20/94.
    
    It's interesting how quickly you fall into denial when there is an
    effective rebuttal available to you.  (Don't expect *me* to provide it
    8^)

    Steve,
    
    You can't mean that faced with a solution the Repub's said they
    wanted when they were in the minority, when it became clear that the
    rpub's were going to win a majority of at least one house, they would
    turn tail on this?
    
    Oh my goodness.  No hypocracy hee at all, nope.
    
    meg

    
    Steve is right - it was blocked in the Senate along with just
    about everything else.  The 103rd sent tons of legislation to a
    watery grave, all in the heat of the campaign.  It was so
    polarized over there they just gave up on passing anything by the
    end.
    
      bb

    i have thought on this. and thought some more. and then thought even
    more. and this is what i have deduced.
    
    term limits is a bad idea. its an admission of failure. a failure of
    the system? no. a failure of the people. people are to lazy and GD
    stupid to figure our who to vote for so now we want to enact laws to
    accommodate that stupidity? that's stupid. it you don't like your
    congresscritters then vote their butts out. don't say it can't be done,
    cause it can. if the voters of MN can elect a rod grahms, whom i
    personnally campaigned hard for, then just about anything is possible.

    thanks for that 'thought', Gene.  Maybe you should put it in the proper
    topic (72.*).
    
    DougO

    
    
      RE: .9  >...George Mitchell...
    
      Now there's an unimpeachable, unbiased source! :-)
    
      Paul           

    	Re. .5
    
    	What's the SUNSHINE ACT?
    
                                 S.R.

    In colorado, it forces most everything done by local and state
    governments to be done out in the open.  there are loopholes, however,
    executive session can be called whenever there is anything remotely
    resembling a personnell issue.
    
    meg

    re .9
    
    The bill was the Swett(D)-Shay(R) bill.  The problem with the the bill
    was that it was more cosmetic than real.  Violations of the provisions
    resulted in referring the complaint to an ethics panel, and any fines
    that were assessed would be paid by the senate rather than by the
    member.
    
    It died beacuse it did not go far enough.  It was interesting to note
    that during the last by-election, Democrats referred to it as the Swett
    bill and Republicans referred to it as the Shay bill. 
    
    /jim

|On the first day of the 104th Congress
|
|    the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major
|    reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people
|     in their government: 
|
|    FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also
|    apply equally to the Congress; 
    
    Wordy was wrong.  The Republican Contract with America stated that this
    bill would be passed - DAY ONE.
    
    Well, day one is here.  And guess what?
    
    It will be passed.  Not as promised, but close enough for government
    work, right boys?
    
    The Shay Bill, (damned by Senate Republicans such a short time ago)
    is essentially unchanged, and will be submitted today. It is expected
    to pass the house.  It is being brought to the floor under closed
    rules.  (So, in less than 24 hours, Newt broke that promise, though
    he was smart enough not to include that promise in the contract.)
    No amendments.  No debate.  Vote.  Period.
    
    Then of course the Senate will pass their version, conference, blah
    blah blah blah, and it will go into law - someday.  (Remember, the
    contract only promised that House Republicans would pass these things
    day one, not when (even if) they would become law.)
    
    
    It seems a simple enough pledge:
    
|   Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply
|   equally to the Congress.
    
    Remember the fine print.  Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act
    only apply to the Executive Branch (Most Federal and some State).
    So, FOIA and Privacy Act won't apply to Congress.  Nya nya.  (Psssst.
    Don't you dare look behind this smoke screen and speculate why the
    Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does get applied to Congress.)
    
    You figure that "apply equally to the Congress" would mean things like
    EEOC would have jurisdiction over Congress in hiring and employement
    practices?  Wrong.  Some people are more equal than others.  Congress
    gets a new "Office of Compliance."
    
    You figure that the very same employement rules would apply to
    Congress?  Wrong, some people are more equal than others.
    They've added special exemptions, such as party affiliation,
    place of residence and "political compatibility" are valid job
    requirements.  Patronage is alive and well.
    
    Could any member of Congress be personally held liable for violating
    the laws that we can be held personally liable for violating?  Of
    course not, some people are more equal than others.  Only we the people
    can be held liable for the actions of they the Congress.  Ain't that
    nice?
    
    								-mr. bill

    I wonder if we'll get a daily whining play by play.

    it would be no less than you deserve.
    
    DougO

    Nonsense. As you have correctly recalled so far, I complained about the
    republican bickering after the president and her husband were elected.

    you are right doctah! the whining will be daily, loud, and sickening.
    the GOP is going to pass a lot of what they said they would pass. what
    a novel idea - the saying and doing being consistent. the dims had best
    be careful. they can watch, wait, and look for slip ups. however, if
    they continue to slam the passage of the contracts main points the
    people will turn even farther from them and more to the right.
    
    that's because the majority of people in this country agree with the
    contract. its been a major political success engineered by newt. no
    matter what you feel about it, its hard to deny its overwhelmingly
    positive message to the voters - remember them? they are the ones that
    own this country.

    ok- present company excepted; you, Mark, may not 'deserve' to hear all
    the caterwauling that's gonna go down, but you know who does.  And
    every time I hear someone say "give him more time" "sour grapes" "sore
    losers" I'm just gonna laugh and take one tally mark from the 10,000
    times the same ones who say it now ignored it the last two years.
    
    DougO

    and you, Gene- ha ha ha ha ha!  Dems better be careful, huh- tell me
    what they have to lose?  Spoiler politics, making the ones who present
    initiatives fall flat and take it in the chops, quite evidently WORK in
    this country- you think the dems are so punch drunk they haven't
    figured out how the spin beat them?  Now, its the GOP who have to come
    up with policy initiatives- and lead with their chins- and if the
    Senate doesn't play ball there'll be filibusters, cause there's only 53
    GOP Senators- and if they twist hard enough to break outta there,
    there's still a veto pen.  Clinton has announced a re-election
    campaign.  He's just had a bad round, but he's coming out swinging. 
    And after all the GOP hype, if Clinton defines issues of opposition
    strongly and clearly enough (well, it *could* happen) then he'll be
    able to veto on principles, not just as an obstructionist.  Politics.
    Nasty.  Payback time.  You pie-in-the-sky repubs have got no clue of
    what is waiting out there- and payback is comin'.  Enjoy your euphoria,
    boys- it'll make your landing all the harder, and all the more
    enjoyable to watch.
    
    DougO

    	Still hearing those voices in your head, I see, Doug.

Note 73.24 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >and you, Gene- ha ha ha ha ha!  Dems better be careful, huh- tell me
    >what they have to lose? 
    
    not much. they've been pretty much drawn and quartered in the last
    couple of years. i'm only saying they could lose what little
    credibility they have left by pissing on the wrong trees at the wrong
    time. their philosophy and party are in big political trouble in the
    US. its not inconceivable a 3rd national political party could draw
    more votes than the democartic candidate in '96. its entirely possible.

    Joe, you have something to say to me, you'd better make it dammned
    respectable from here on out.
    
    Gene, that wouldn't trouble me a bit.  As I tried to tell Mark when he
    said they were "my party", I consider both major parties corrupt and
    worthless, ill-representative of the voters and arrogant with their
    power.  A legitimate third party candidacy, one which addressed the
    issues that I consider important, would be a WELCOME change.  But
    meanwhile, I can quite cynically predict that democrats have got
    nothing to lose by playing spoiler politics, just as the GOP did.
    And they're the same types of people, so why wouldn't they?
    
    DougO

    
    RE: .27
    
    >Joe, you have something to say to me, you'd better make it dammned
    > respectable from here on out.
    
     This from Mr. "Vengeance is Mine"???
    
    
     As for the rest of your reply....
    
     I agree with it...
    
     Sheeeeeeeeesh!!! How gullible can I get!!!!!!!
    
        
    

    	I'm shakin' in my boots, Doug.

    
    >meanwhile, I can quite cynically predict that democrats have got
    >nothing to lose by playing spoiler politics, just as the GOP did.
    >And they're the same types of people, so why wouldn't they?
    
    you consider the interview with newts ma "spoiler politics". after all,
    it totally polically motivated. 

    I haven't seen it.  Connie Chung?  Newt's MOTHER?  If she was so stupid
    as to repeat that her son shoots off his mouth in private, well, then
    she's stupid.  Newt should have handled it better; that's the real
    issue; Glen says he "exploded" about it on live TV, when if he'd just
    laughed it off with a quip about wondering what Hillary calls *him*, it
    would've blown over in a heartbeat.  But he's left himself vulnerable,
    and of course the press are going after him.  That's as much his fault
    as anyones.  He had better instincts last week, when he gave the money
    back.  Actually, I don't think this is "spoiler" politics, because it
    didn't originate with the dems- this is media sharkfeeding, a different
    animal.  But part of that glare I was mentioning earlier, certainly,
    and yet another of the treacherous aspects that COME WITH THE TERRITORY
    of trying to lead in this country.  He wanted the job.  Now you get to
    put up with what that means.
    
    DougO

>    If she was so stupid
>    as to repeat that her son shoots off his mouth in private, well, then
>    she's stupid.  
    
    	She's a naive, frail, old woman.  She's not a public figure,
    	and her statements shouldn't be treated as worthy of such
    	attention.
    
>    Newt should have handled it better; that's the real
>    issue; 
    
    	Newt handled it perfectly.  Now the spotlight is focused on the
    	sharkfeeding, as you so perfectly named it.  I predict that
    	Ms. Chung will be busted down to pup reporter in 1995.  She
    	will be silenced just like Elders was silenced.
    
    	Where is that 1995 predictions topic anyway...

>     <<< Note 73.23 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>
>
>    ok- present company excepted; you, Mark, may not 'deserve' to hear all
>    the caterwauling that's gonna go down, but you know who does.  And
>    every time I hear someone say "give him more time" "sour grapes" "sore
>    losers" I'm just gonna laugh and take one tally mark from the 10,000
>    times the same ones who say it now ignored it the last two years.
>    
>    DougO


Are you saying that your personal goal is to piss off those that like what's
happening in the attempt to return America to it's rightful owners?  If
that's the case, then your about as pitiable a soul as there could possibly
be.  You'll spend that much energy pissing and moaning and will do nothing
about it!

What a joke.

    Someone used the word "frail" to describe Newt's mom.  I wouldn't use
    that word.
    
    I hapened to catch the live interview with Newt and Dole this AM when
    CBS played the clip from the Connie Chung & Newt Mom interview.  When
    Connie said you can whisper it to me, the closeup showed an aging
    woman, holding a cigarette between her first two fingers which were
    neatly manicured and painted red, speaking in a whiskey-husky voice.
    
    If anything connected, it was an image of BC's mom.  Now there was a
    woman who could have embarassed Bill at anytime.  With a shrug and a
    smile, he never let it happen.
    
    He truly intimidated the two CBS Morning people.  The director had to
    quickly pull the camera back so their faces wouldn't be so prominent on
    the screen.  After Newt stated that they shouldn't interviewing his
    mother, the CBS Morning lady stated that they will be interviewing his
    sister as well.  (fade to black, run commercial)
    
    Newt doesn't operate with the Mr. Personality style.  It will be
    interesting to see how he survives in this image conscious country now
    that the public spotlight is on him.
    
    -- Jim

    > Are you saying that your personal goal is to piss off those that like
    > what's happening in the attempt to return America to it's rightful
    > owners? 
    
    Nah.  I said I'm going to laugh at those who are discomfitted now that
    the shoes on the other foot, that one set of corrupt pols has traded
    power and position with the other set, and the newly powerful and their
    dupes are imagining they can reinvent the world.  Huh!  Rosey dreamland
    will end sooner rather than later, as the displaced set sabotages the
    current-ins...as payback for the sabotage they experienced in their
    turn.  How many democratic programs died or were compromised to death
    by the republican filibusters or the 39-times-weilded veto pen of
    George Bush?  I'm way passed pissed off, pal- that happened with GOP
    gridlock over the last decade, and I'm beyond it now.  No, where I am
    is cynically laughing at the rosey dreamers among you, who think you're
    going to "take back America"- because you haven't yet cottoned that the
    game is crooked, and your idols are in on it.  We won't get a solution
    to this problem until we throw *all* the bums out.  Enjoy your dreams;
    you'll be waking up soon, though; and it'll be a rough awakening.
    
    DougO

 Having seen the connie chung interview on the tube, I believe it is *she* that
 owes Mr. Gingrich and the American public an apology.  




 Jim

    -.1 Bwhahahahaahahhahhahaha... that must've been the computer
      enhanced/censored clip you saw...
    
      What's this? The 5-6 note with the CC interview being discussed?
    
      Chip

    -.1
    
    	Are you serious?!  Commie Chung told Mrs. Gingrich that the comment
    would just between them.  Commie lied to Mrs. Gingrich and owes at least
    an apology to her.
    
    	BTW, NBC was interviewing Mr. Newt on Today yestewrday.  From what
    I heard, Bryant Gumbal was going to ask Mr. Newt about a quote from his
    mother.  Before Mr. Gumbal got out the quote, Mr. Newt told Mr. Gumbal
    that he was not going to comment on anything his mother said because he
    didn't know what his mother and Commie Chung talked about for 8 hours.
    
    ME

    
    >Commie Chung told Mrs. Gingrich that the comment
    >would just between them.
    
    In those exact words?  I didn't see the clip.  What did Connie actually    
    say to Mrs G?						   ^^^^^^^^
    ^^^

    Don't you people remember the infamous interview with candidate Bushes
    wife, Barbara.
    
    Commentator:  Mrs. Bush, what are your feelings toward Geraldine
    Farraro?
    
    Barbara:  I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with witch!!!!
    
    I agree with DougO in the sense that if he feels Hillary is a bitch, he
    shouldn't try to hide it.  So he thinks she's a bitch...so do millions
    of other Americans!
    
    -Jack

RE:                     <<< Note 73.37 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

   > -.1 Bwhahahahaahahhahhahaha... that must've been the computer
   >   enhanced/censored clip you saw...
    
    

      Yeah..the one that was computer enhanced, censored and broadcast
      on CBS news last night..




 Jim

    re: .27
    
    I have to agree with DougO on a couple of points (shock! horror!! 8^) )
    
    1) A lefitimate third party candidacy would be welcome from the current
       two (one?) party monopoly.
    
    2) Both parties are corrupt.  
    
       I have a little more faith in the Repubs merely because their 
       ideology is far better than the loony-leftist crapola that has 
       sucked this nation dry for the past 30+ years. 
       What remains to be seen is if the new slant at government is harmful
       in the long run.  With the passage of thousands of pages of bills,
       it is entirely possible that there will be elements slipped within 
       that will come back to haunt us (ala crime bill).
    
    At least with such a freshmen oriented Congress, perhaps corruption
    has not set in yet.
    
    I do think that some good reforms will be passed soon, which is a lot
    more than I could say a year ago, when I was praying for gridlock.
    
    
    -steve

>    In those exact words?  I didn't see the clip.  What did Connie actually    
>    say to Mrs G?						   ^^^^^^^^
>    ^^^

She said "Why don't you wisper it to me, JUST BETWEEN YOU AND ME."

/scott

    
    She probably said "whisper" rather than "wisper" 8^).
    
    Anyway, well, to quote Emily Litella, "That's very different."  She's
    really blown her integrity with that rather numb move.

Re: <<< Note 73.42 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>
    
>>    1) A lefitimate third party candidacy would be welcome...
           ----------

Freudian slip or play on words?  Inquiring minds want to know :-)

                              Roak

    you people amaze me... she certainly did say what's being quoted
    here... but get a clue will ya! now your gonna convince me that
    mummy-Newt was unaware she was being interviewed, the cameras
    were focused on something else and the mic was off. 
    
    clearly, to those conscious CC's remarks were a little tongue in
    cheek. if you didn't see it, you can't assess it. if you did see
    it and think mummy-Newt was duped, well then seek out some professional
    help quickly...
    
    Chip

    
    One thing is clear.  Newt learned his restraint in front of a mike or
    camera from his mother.
    
    But Dole's     -eating grin was worth the whole silly mess.  I will
    say, visions of the Bob-and-Newt show over the next two years is
    appealing.  Poor Phil.  Not only is he bald, but by the time he drawls
    out a "buuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhht" Bob-and-Newt will be on to the next topic
    in the debate.
    
    								-mr. bill

   RE: 73.46 <WMOIS::GIROUARD_C>

   >you people amaze me... she certainly did say what's being quoted here...
   >but get a clue will ya! now your gonna convince me that mummy-Newt was
   >unaware she was being interviewed, the cameras were focused on something
   >else and the mic was off.

       It was an eight hour interview...I'm sure there were many questions
   asked on and off camera...mummy-Newt could, in my opinion, easily have not
   know when they were taping or not.

   Tony

    nothing worse than a "battle of the tounges"

I think "mother of newt" has a nice ring to it.

>    you people amaze me... she certainly did say what's being quoted
>    here... 

You amaze me... I heard what she said... she said "Whisper it to me,
just between you and me"... What did you hear her say???

(frankly, I might be off with the "to me", maybe it was just "Whisper it,
just between you and me")

Tell me... if that is not the quote, what is the quote...

/Scott

    ...for those not following i'll say it again, what was said was 
    precisely what is being stated here and what i heard. the
    thing i'm probably not getting across well is that literal words
    are simply not always what is communicated, e.g. tone, inflection,
    volume, facial expression, ect...
    
    for some reason, people are hearing the words only. it's so obvious
    hellen keller would've caught it...
    
    Chip

>    for some reason, people are hearing the words only. it's so obvious
>    hellen keller would've caught it...

Um... you're really a sad case, trying to support Connie in all of this
just to make Newt look bad... I think you should seek professional help
if Newt is driving you this crazy.

/scott

    i think you should keep track of my notes and take your blinders
    off...
    
    Chip

    
    i think you should leave blinders out of this.  he never really wanted
    to jump onto scott's head but hey, that's his calling!
    
    jeff

    .-1 you're absolutely right... so sorry.
    
    Chip

    ... that's okay, what was the question?

    re: .45
    
    Hey hey hey!!!  I corrected my spelin in the title.  8^)

  I saw and heard the now famous remark. Frankly it is much ado about nothing 
 in todays' context. In a more genteel era it would be horrifying.

  Connie looked shocked that Mrs Gingrich actually said the 'b' word. In my
 opinion Mrs. G. said what she wanted to say. Agreed that Connie said 'Just
 betwen us, whisper it to me' but does anyone think that Connie and CBS really
 gives two hoots about anything but making the news?

  Let's face it ANYTHING GOES today. You see it all around you. Nobody cares
 about anyone else but themselves. In this case, CBS chose to run the tape
 for ratings when it could have just as easily snipped it out. They were
 looking out for number 1!


    - Bob

	>>Nobody cares about anyone else but themselves.

	thank goodness this isn't true.

    
    larry king made it perfectly clear last night what an interview subject
    is - a prop.  he was interviewing oprah winfrey (queen of psychobabble)
    and asking her why people volunteer to be on a talk show, "don't they
    know they're just props?".
    
    jeff

    ... thank you Bob & Jeff, well said! my wife and me often wonder
    what possess some of these people to open the kimono to the world.
    
    she hates those shows and i like to watch. the entertainment value
    for me is centered around that morbid element everyone carries with
    them (slowing down at an accident kinda thing). 
    
    on the downside, it scares the hell outa ya to think these people are
    on the streets and some of them have actually calved.
    
    Chip
    

    ...my wife and I!  I dammit!  Now write this a bazillion times on the
    board.  I you must, you can use cut and paste.  
    
    Brian

    -.1 i thought you were divorced...
    
        being single has had a definite anal effect on you Bri'
    
        Chip

    I am, recently.  Just thought I'd give you a helping hand on this
    bright cheery Friday AM.  :-)

    ... oh, thanks. and all us who is grammatically impared tanks ya a whole
        lot... :-). you reminded me of a nun i had in the 3rd grade. she
        had to of been 100 yrs. old when i had her and my father said the
        same thing when he had her (in school - don't turn this ugly)...
    
        i'd bet she's still around and could kick Tex Cobb's butt (still)

If Patrick heard you badmouthing the nuns like that Chip, well - I just
don't know what he'd do . . . .

    <- Patrick? St. Patrick?
    
       Chip

    Was that shop class Chip?  Was it Sister Mary Black&Decker?
    
    Brian

Actually, I believe he _might_ have been called Saint Patrick.
But it was the departed Mr. Sweeney to whom I referred.

    ... aaahhhh... actually, she was Sister Victoire. she is indellibly
    etched in my mind and my permanently scarred body.
    
    Chip

    
    What a pretty name, tho; Sister Victoire.
    
    Kinda rolls gently off the tongue, evoking thoughts of shady forests,
    gleaming rills of cool water tumbling over rocks with a soft musical
    sound, and the muted hush of feet treading gently on fallen pine needles.
                                                      

    I've always liked the name Veronique for just that reason.

    
    Let's go for a walk in the woods and murmur French names to each other
    8^).

    .73 i think the woman could bench press a bus. i agree, very nice
        name...
    
        Chip

    Congress will have to obey work laws
    
    By HELEN DEWAR
    
    Washington Post
    
    WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Wednesday night approved on a bipartisan
    vote the first major initiative of the Republican-led 104th Congress: 
    a bill to force the House and Senate to comply with the anti-
    discrimination, safety and other workplace rules that they impose
    on other employers.
    
    The bill, which last year was on track for enactment until it crashed
    into a pre-election wall of Republican stalling tactics in the Senate,
    was part of the ``Contract With America,'' the GOP list of campaign
    promises that helped the party take control of both houses in the Nov.
    8 elections.
    
    The vote on work regulations was 98-1, with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.,
    casting the only dissenting vote.
    
    The House has already approved similar legislation, and Rep.
    Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chief sponsor of the House version, said
    the bill will be on President Clinton's desk by the end of the month.
    Clinton has said he will sign the measure. The House could either
    accept the Senate version or resolve minor differences in a conference.
    
    While the 36,000 employees of Congress and its agencies are already
    covered to some extent by many of the laws, the legislation is being
    touted by GOP leaders as emblematic of the new majority party's
    intention to overhaul Congress and end what they have decried as the
    privileged status of members.
    
    No longer will there be ``two sets of laws -- one for Capitol Hill and
    one for the rest of the country; one for Pennsylvania Avenue, D.C., and
    another for Main Street, USA,'' said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the
    bill's chief sponsor in the Senate.
    
    By forcing lawmakers to live by the same rules they write for others,
    Republicans are also trying to bring pressure on them to stop writing
    regulations and reconsider some of the ones they have enacted -- a goal
    not universally shared by Democratic supporters.
    
    The Congressional Accountability Act would end long-standing exemptions
    under which Congress and its agencies, such as the General Accounting
    Office and Government Printing Office, escaped provisions of 11
    employment-related laws. As a result, Capitol Hill came to be known as
    ``the last plantation,'' as Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, characterized it
    as long ago as 1978.

    It's not over til it's over.
    
    The bill was amended in the Senate.  It now goes back to the House.
    Mr. Newt will decide whether to put it up for a vote on the floor or
    to send it to a confrence committee.
    
    After all, the Senators did something Mr. Newt did not permit the
    Representatives to do.  They amended the bill.
    
    
    And after that big first day, the House has not met.  Tomorrow,
    they meet in pro forma session only.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    
    Did this ever get done??
    

       I think everything except the balanced budget has been accomplished.
    -ss
    

    
    
    .80 You mean we have term limits?
    

No, he means term limits have been brought to the floor for a vote ....

    re -1
    
       Thanks.
    -ss