But in this case, the normally staunch allies are opponents.

Mike Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department and Utah's former governor, is President Bush's lead negotiator in the fight over the Children's Health Insurance Program. He is trying to persuade Congress to scale back its plans to expand CHIP, which covers uninsured children who don't qualify for Medicaid.

Sen. Orrin Hatch is standing in his way. CHIP is quite possibly Hatch's biggest political legacy. He was the lead Republican sponsor when CHIP became law 10 years ago, and he now finds himself allied with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as he tries to gain support for a large expansion of his pet program.

Hatch doesn't like disagreeing with Leavitt, who managed his re-election campaign in 1982, and has said so on the Senate floor. But this isn't the first time they disagreed about CHIP. Those close to the two men say on no other issue do they diverge so strongly.

That hasn't stopped them from talking. They have discussed their differences as Democrats pushed a bill through Congress and then again as Bush killed it with a veto. For the past week, they sought common ground but were unable to broker a compromise.

Democrats tried a new version anyway, which included a few concessions. Bush and his allies were not satisfied.

Through it all, Leavitt and Hatch have remained mostly cordial, but as the political pressure rises frustrations are starting to show.

"I think he would prefer me to go along with the White House on this and that would be wonderful if they are right, but they are not right," said Hatch, who is normally one of Bush's biggest congressional supporters.

For Hatch, the equation is simple. It costs $35 billion over five years to track down those who are eligible but have not signed up and to expand the program to cover the remaining children who have fallen in what is called the "doughnut hole," that space between Medicaid and private insurance.

"I think every one of these kids ought to be covered," the senator said.

But Bush and Leavitt don't believe that is the role of the government. They want to see CHIP narrowly tailored to help the families making 200 percent of the poverty level or less. The administration has some tax-cut proposal they believe would help the remaining children get private coverage.

Leavitt fears that expanding CHIP would entice more than 1 million children off private insurance in favor of the government program, which he considers an incremental step to a government-run health care system.

And his concern about price and scope was also the primary force behind Leavitt's complaints in 1997, according to Rod Betit, who was the director of the Utah Health Department during Leavitt's administration.

Betit, who is now the director of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, said Leavitt has always supported CHIP but he has also tried "to draw some reasonable boundaries around this program."

Hatch hasn't always seen Leavitt as a supporter. The senator's autobiography, Square Peg, mentioned Leavitt only one time, saying: "The state governors were almost unanimous in opposition. . . .

"Only Governor [Howard] Dean of Vermont came out in favor. The governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt, led the fight inside the National Governor's Association that resulted in a formal declaration of opposition."

Hatch has since added a few caveats. In a floor speech given at the end of September, Hatch credited Leavitt with making the first CHIP bill stronger by "advocating for a greater federal role" and giving states more flexibility.

Betit said Hatch has overstated Leavitt's objections, though the former governor did demand the bill allow states to define the benefits package and limit enrollment. Ultimately, both changes were made and soon Leavitt embraced the program.

Betit, who remains close to Leavitt, agreed with him then and does now.

"Where do we draw the line?" Betit asked. "The concerns are about how much of this should be publicly funded rather than privately funded."

Leavitt has said he would be open to a $20 billion expansion but that would force Hatch and the Democratic leaders to drop the number of children covered below their goal of 10 million - something they vigorously oppose.

Hatch credited Democratic leaders for making "a good faith effort" to reach a consensus. The CHIP bills have passed by wide margins, though they remain a few votes shy of the number needed to override a presidential veto.

But Hatch doesn't believe the administration has given the same effort. He questions the legitimacy of the administration's criticism of the bill and their drive to find common ground.

He has pushed Leavitt to talk face-to-face with Pelosi, even offering to arrange a meeting with the Democratic House leader. So far, Leavitt has resisted.

"That is disappointing to me," Hatch said.

He doesn't fault Leavitt, not totally. And Hatch isn't even sure that Leavitt really disagrees with him.

"I doubt that he differs with me, but he is carrying the mail for the administration," Hatch said.

The latest bill offers a few concessions for Republican opponents. It would move adults off the program quicker, cap the income eligibility level and tighten restrictions against coverage for undocumented immigrants.

The House passed that version Thursday, and the Senate could take it up as early as this week, forcing another showdown with the president, who has already promised another veto.

The political wrangling aside, Hatch remains optimistic.

"No doubt that Secretary Leavitt and I are going to work together and try to get this done," he said.

mcanham@sltrib.com

Mike Leavitt

Health and Human Services secretary and former Utah governor

* Defends President Bush's veto of an expanded Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing that it would be a step toward government-run health care for middle-class Americans.

Orrin Hatch

Six-term U.S. senator and one of the Bush administration's most staunch allies.

* Pushes for a $35 billion expansion of CHIP, siding with Democratic leaders against the president. Hatch says the increase is needed to cover low-income children who otherwise won't have health care coverage.