I would have never signed on to it. This is a new entitlement program. It is money on top of what is in the budget agreement. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Senator from Texas, what he just said, the $16 billion was more than I thought was necessary. But it is in the agreement and the Finance Committee is already working, I am sure, on ways to deal with those children that might, in fact, be uninsured or not covered. They have the opportunity to do that. And there is enough money in here to do it. But, now the Senator comes in here and makes all kinds of threats about how we will go on and on and on today, until we get a vote--I guess he presumes to put this in there. And then the argument is made that this does not change the agreement. Would it change the agreement if an amendment is offered to cut spending, which I think should happen--there is not enough spending restraint in this agreement--and add it to tax cuts? I would be inclined to vote for that, want to vote for that. That would be the right thing to do. But that would clearly change the makeup of this agreement.
Trent Lott: “I would have never signed on to it. This is a new entitlement program. It is money on top of what is in the budget…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Kennedy health care proposal in relation to the budget agreement.
Share
More from Trent Lott
with regard to Senator Reid's comments, I don't see any problem with vitiating cloture on the so-called CHIP bill, H.R. 3963. If the leader would like to do that, I assume after consultation with Leader McConnell there wouldn't be any…
But, unfortunately, the wheels have come off in the Finance Committee, in the House, in trying to find a way to come together in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way.
Quit campaigning, quit having press conferences, sit down at a round table and negotiate a deal.
You've got to do that every now and then. Even though you might get your little flak from some of the people within your conference. It's called leadership.