» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments

Veto Threat Angers Republicans

Some on Hill Disagree With Bush on Health Insurance for Kids

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Christopher Lee and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 21, 2007

Republicans reacted angrily yesterday to President Bush's promise to veto a bill that would renew and expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program, raising the likelihood of significant GOP defections when the package comes to a vote next week.

This Story

"I'm disappointed by the president's comments," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who urged Bush, in an early-morning telephone conversation yesterday, to support the emerging bipartisan compromise. "Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn't constructive. . . . I wish he would engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto."

"I'm very, very disappointed," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I'm going to be voting for it."

With the program about to expire on Sept. 30, Bush said in a news conference that he will reject the $35 billion funding expansion being cobbled together by House and Senate negotiators. He said the bill would inappropriately extend coverage to children in families with incomes of as much as $83,000 a year, prompting many parents to drop private insurance. He urged Congress to pass, instead, a temporary extension of the program until a more lasting compromise can be worked out.

"Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington," Bush said. He added later that "health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken."

But members of both parties countered that it is the president who is putting children's health in jeopardy. They said most Americans, including many GOP governors and groups such as AARP, support the expansion of the program's enrollment to about 10 million children from 6.6 million now.

Some Republicans could face considerable pressure to defy the president when the measure comes to a vote. Lawmakers are confident of veto-proof passage in the Senate, but getting the required 290 votes in the House appears to be a long shot.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said he is trying to get 20 to 30 House Republicans to vote for the compromise -- enough, he hopes, to persuade Bush to reconsider.

"I'm optimistic we can get a significant number of Republicans," LaHood said. "It'll be a good vote for them. They can go back home and try to assuage the feelings of their constituents who have heartburn about their views on the war or other things. And it shows that, if they feel strongly about something, they are willing to stand up to the president and tell him."

Asked whether he would vote to override a veto, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a staunch conservative, said, "You bet your sweet bippy I will."

Hatch, who helped negotiate the compromise, said it is flatly untrue that the bill would cover children in households with incomes of as much as $83,000. A recent Urban Institute analysis found that 70 percent of the children who would gain or retain coverage under the Senate bill, which resembles the compromise, are in households with incomes below twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.

"We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage," Hatch said. "I think the president's had some pretty bad advice on this."


CONTINUED     1        >


» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
© 2007 The Washington Post Company