BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.

If I could speak on the gentleman's reservation, obviously there is no nefarious intent. There's no question about that. I would like the House to understand where we are procedurally.

It's my understanding that the House, yesterday, spent the better part of the day debating a bill which said that regulation should not take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ANDREWS. I would assume that that flows from the fact that people didn't read the bill, because we debated yesterday for most of the day on a bill that erroneously said ``regulations can't take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent.'' The intention evidently was ``until employment hits 94 percent.''

Then it's my understanding that we find ourselves at the present moment in a situation where the correcting rule that would have fixed the word ``unemployment'' to be ``employment,'' itself, has an error in it, that it refers to another bill by reference; is that correct?

And I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT