WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — Talks seeking a bipartisan compromise on health insurance for low-income children were cut short on Thursday, and the Senate then swiftly passed a bill to provide coverage for 10 million youngsters, fully expecting President Bush to veto it.
The 64-to-30 vote, coming one week after the House approved the same bill, moves the legislation to Mr. Bush’s desk. The bill differs slightly from one vetoed on Oct. 3, but it faces the same fate.
On Thursday, Senate Republican leaders objected to Democratic requests to allow more time for the bipartisan negotiations seeking a compromise. The purpose of the talks was to win over enough House Republicans to override the veto promised by the president.
In an interview, Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “The talks were making really good progress.” But, she said, “everything changed” after the top two Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Trent Lott of Mississippi, “objected to postponing a Senate vote” on the bill.
Seventeen Republican senators voted for the bill, but Mr. McConnell and Mr. Lott voted against it. Mr. Lott said the bill did not focus enough on “poor kids.”
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said, “Republicans have now twice asked for more time on the children’s health bill and have twice objected when we granted their request.”
Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said that opponents of the child health program “have succeeded in stopping us today.” But he said he hoped that “we will reach an agreement soon.”
Mr. McConnell said he too was optimistic that “we will be able to get this worked out,” if more Republicans were included in the negotiations.
Mr. Reid said Congress should not rush forward and try to override the veto this time. “We should let things simmer for a while,” to give supporters of the bill more time to strike a deal, he said.
If no agreement is reached, Congressional Democrats said, they might continue the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in its current form until September or October. Then they would hold another vote on the issue, to embarrass Republicans just before the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections when health care in general and the future of the child health program are expected to loom as major issues.
But health officials in some states, including California and New Jersey, said they could run out of money before then. Liberal groups and labor unions said Thursday that they would run $700,000 worth of new television commercials attacking Republicans who voted against the child health bill.
One advertisement, produced by Americans United for Change, asks: “What if your daughter didn’t have health coverage, senator? What if you had to work two jobs to make ends meet, but still couldn’t afford insurance? Would you still back George Bush’s vetoes?”
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said the White House seemed to be “moving the goal posts,” raising new objections as soon as Congress tried to address each of the president’s concerns.
Some Republicans were concerned about the overall cost of the legislation. Others complained that the bill would allow coverage of adults, illegal immigrants and high-income families in some states.
The new legislation, like the original bill, would preserve coverage for 6.6 million children and add nearly 4 million to the rolls. The bill would add $35 billion to the program, providing a total of $60 billion over five years. The additional money would come from higher tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax, to $1 a pack.
President Bush objects to the proposed increase in tobacco taxes, but Congress is not considering any other way to pay for the bill.
The tax increase is not an issue in the negotiations and has apparently been accepted by House Republicans participating in the bipartisan talks. “Nobody is talking about taking cigarette taxes off the table,” Mr. Baucus said.
Indeed, Democrats boast that the bill will not add a dollar to the deficit because the cost would be completely covered by tobacco taxes.