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.
Share
More from Rob Andrews
I thank the gentleman. So the employer rates, which have risen at the slowest rates in the last 5 or 6 years, would once again be subject to the kind of spikes that happen here. Look, I think there is bipartisan agreement in this Chamber…
Last night, on rollcall Nos. 32 and 33 for H.R. 1791 and H.R. 357, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both. Today, on rollcall Nos. 34 and 35 for the Rule on H.R. 3590 and H. Res. 470…
I think you are doing some of the most important work in our country and you are all doing it very well.
We come here as stewards of a very sacred trust--to look after the people that are the backbone of this country. We are having this debate this afternoon because we have all heard from men and women across this country who are very upset…





