Don Nickles: “The intention of the Senator from Washington may be that it is not retroactive, but your amendment is retroactive. With…”

“The intention of the Senator from Washington may be that it is not retroactive, but your amendment is retroactive. With the amendment before the Senate, an individual could be out of work in January and February, get a job in March, and receive payments. Read the amendment. It is there. It is retroactive. It may not have been the Senator's intention, but it is the fact. The amendment is unnecessary even if it is prospective, but it is not. As written, it is retroactive. This is the middle of May. By the time this would get through conference, it would be in June, July, or later. Yet this amendment says, let's go back to January. So if someone gets a job in between then, they would be entitled to receive payments. It is grossly irresponsible and all the more reason our colleagues should not support the amendment.”