On the recordJune 7, 2000
The retiree community, in particular, following this, will say to the Senator from Virginia: Why did you cut short to 2004? I simply say: Because the likelihood of getting 60 votes was in doubt, and I didn't want to have that doubt. I wanted to make sure we got started on some major incremental series of benefits for retirees. That is why I did it. I made that calculation. I take full responsibility for having done it. Now, let's see if we can narrow the differences between the approach of my colleague and the one I take. I summarize it as follows: I have provided in my bill, albeit only through 2004, every provision the Senator has. Particularly, I commend him for waiving the 1964 law--not waiving it, but taking it off--which was essential. We did that together. The main difference is the coverage that is given to these retirees under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; would I be correct in that?
Source
govinfo.gov




