[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3085-S3086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Medicaid

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
President's proposed budget as it relates to Medicaid and the fact that 
it is just a war on Medicaid; that is, it continues the wrongheaded 
ideas that have been proposed in the House bill on healthcare reform 
and takes that and continues to make cuts to Medicaid that are 
unsustainable for our healthcare system.
  The President's budget would impose a block grant or per capita cap 
on States in 2020 in exchange for so-called flexibility. I haven't met 
one State administrator of healthcare in our State who says they need 
more flexibility. They have a lot of flexibility on Medicaid currently, 
but they know this is just a budget cap and a budget cut.
  The budget would result in $610 billion in cuts to States, in 
addition to what would happen if they were successful in passing the 
House bill in the Senate. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
put it, the Trump budget cuts Medicaid ``considerably more deeply than 
the House bill's per capita cap proposal would do.''
  No doubt what the budget is proposing from the President today and 
what our House colleagues have proposed on healthcare means more damage 
for healthcare and more damage for Medicaid.
  Let's be more specific. Medicaid for healthcare is about children. It 
is about seniors. It is about the disabled. It is about working 
families. It is about young people. Medicaid covers half of the births 
and the majority of long-term care stays.

[[Page S3086]]

  What people may not realize is that the President's budget cut to 
Medicaid also cuts children's healthcare, as a new study reveals, by at 
least $43 billion, according to Avalere Health. That is taking 
healthcare away from children, poor children, who need access to 
healthcare. Additionally, the budget impacts 1.75 million veterans who 
also get healthcare through Medicaid.
  How can we possibly be standing here with a budget proposal by the 
President of the United States--after he promised not to cut Medicaid--
that not only proposes to cut Medicaid but cuts childrens' and 
veterans' healthcare when they need it most?
  Medicaid is a lifeline for people who can't get covered or can't get 
a fair deal. It is a highly cost-effective, dynamic, and innovative 
program that has worked well, and Medicaid is a winning economic 
strategy for how to help families get out of poverty. It is one of the 
most successful anti-poverty programs in the United States and the 
second largest program to combat extreme poverty.
  Its expansion in Washington has helped create jobs indirectly and 
directly and has saved our State about $353 million in our State 
budget. It injects billions into the economy and supports our high-
wage, high-skill jobs throughout the healthcare economy.
  As we know, our colleagues, in the House draconian healthcare act, 
would for the first time cut Medicaid's successful program by 
introducing a cap that would result in reductions every year to the 
Medicaid Program. Regardless of who needs access, regardless of those 
children, regardless of those veterans, it would continue to push down 
Medicaid funds by more each year.
  I have said to my colleagues in the House that there are far more 
innovative ways to help our healthcare delivery system that are cost-
effective, but simply cutting veterans or families or children off of 
Medicaid is not the way to do it.
  The President's budget released today would reinforce this permanent 
cap. Currently, Medicaid is a needs-based partnership between the 
States and the Federal Government. During economic recessions, natural 
disasters, or public health emergencies, States know they can count on 
the Federal Government.
  Under what has been proposed in the House, the per capita cap would 
give States only a fixed amount and start reducing the amount of money 
each year. It would leave a tsunami of seniors and others without new 
technologies, prescription drugs, or tools to address new healthcare 
threats.
  There is nothing about it that is reform. It is not innovation. It is 
simply a budget mechanism to cut Medicaid. I don't know how the 
President, given that he promised before not to cut Medicaid could do 
this. He said: ``I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to 
state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.''
  If that is what the President tweeted, if that is what he said he was 
going to do, why is he now proposing a budget that actually cuts 
Medicaid?
  We do not want to throw 600,000 Medicaid beneficiaries off of 
coverage in my State--and 14 million across the country--and take $1.4 
billion out of Washington State's economy every year. These are numbers 
according to the Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimates 
and estimates by the State of Washington.
  I think it is time to say no to the President's budget proposal. It 
is time to remind the President of his promise not to cut Medicaid, and 
it is time to stop talking about the silly idea of capping Medicaid and 
reducing funding to the States.
  I mentioned the impact on children and veterans. I also want to 
mention the impact on those suffering from the opioid epidemic and what 
we have been trying to do to treat those individuals. Also, those 
facilities would be in great danger in continuing to treat that 
population if they don't have Medicaid.
  So the notion that this is a smart healthcare strategy or a smart 
healthcare budget--it is not. It is a draconian measure that is going 
to leave many more Americans without healthcare. As I said, Medicaid is 
a successful program. The promise should be kept, and we should 
continue to improve the delivery system as a way to make it more cost-
effective. I know we can't afford to leave sick children without access 
to healthcare, and now is not the time to leave veterans without the 
healthcare they deserve.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.