IIRC the senate committee stated that their intent was to adopt the HR language, modified for some specific senate needs.

That was the basis of the negotiations in the committee. I would tend to assume most language will be as-is in the HR, unless somebody specifically changes it. Tammy has already agreed to 67 (in exchange for keeping the ATP rule intact).

Is somebody going to come out of left field and throw a monkey wrench in a bi-partisan re-authorization, pizzing off their own party leadership in the process? The way things *typically* work is that you hash out your issues *before* it gets out of committee. Most business doesn't get done on the floor, it's done in the offices, halls, restaurants, bars, weekend retreats, etc. Just like corporate America.


While you can get some press by taking a very public stand on the floor *after* everything is agreed to, you will annoy your own party, and if too many people do that, nothing ever gets done. It happens though, ex. the one guy holding up all mil leadership confirmations over an unrelated issue.

It's not totally out of the question though, since given the current senate makeup, it would only take one senator to apply the brakes. Is there one senator who hates age 67 that badly? Kind of doubt it, most don't know a thing about it or care. Tammy (ex mil pilot) does know and care, but she had to compromise to avoid what she considered a greater evil.