Leavitt all but a shoo-in

WASHINGTON — With key Democrats announcing their support, the nomination of former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to be the new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is all but guaranteed.

But the Finance Committee could not muster a quorum for an official vote Wednesday night, meaning committee approval will have to wait until later this week at the earliest, but probably next week.

No one on the committee expressed any reservations about Leavitt, who has spent the past year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after 11 years as Utah governor. But there was plenty of concern about Bush administration policies and how Leavitt might implement reforms.

At times, the questioning was pointed, with senators repeatedly asking Leavitt to answer the question he had been asked, not with feel-good platitudes.

And repeatedly, Leavitt had to respond with phrases like "I am not up to speed on that" and "I know very little about that" and "that's an issue I am anxious to learn more about."

Tuesday's breezy hearing before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was a walk in the park compared to Wednesday's persistent questioning before the Finance Committee, which has the ultimate say on whether Leavitt's nomination will be voted on by the full Senate.

Lawmakers were full of praise of Leavitt's qualifications and reputation as an innovator, but they wanted specific answers on a litany of issues, many technical and some downright esoteric.

Many on both sides of the aisle were concerned about how the administration had been secretive in the past. One recent Government Accountability Office report even went so far as to say the administration had violated the law on how far it went in granting Medicaid waivers.

And some senators were concerned the administration had deceived them on the costs of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug package by cooking the books to make it look less expensive than it really was.

"I believe we were misled," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who pressed Leavitt for a commitment that he would never let it happen again.

Leavitt promised to keep within the law and pledged greater transparency. When questioned what he meant by that, whether it meant greater congressional involvement or greater public oversight, Leavitt stumbled.

When Leavitt said it meant managing by principles, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., pressed the point. What did he mean, exactly?