[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 13, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2877-S2878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Medicaid

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose any proposals to take healthcare coverage away from the American 
people who need it most.
  Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is marking up a 
section of what is called their budget reconciliation bill, which would 
reduce spending by $912 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of money. 
Out of that, $715 billion would come from Medicaid and other healthcare 
programs that are essential to Americans, children, and our most 
vulnerable families.
  House Republicans say that these cuts are about waste, fraud, and 
abuse--but the real fraud is telling the American people that by 
implementing these requirements, that somehow these policies are going 
to save money.
  The truth is, it is just making it harder on Americans to stay on 
Medicaid. A Medicaid program that even the Seattle Times has said 
cutting it could hurt our State's poor and our children.
  So is that what we are trying to do, give a tax break to corporations 
and billionaires by cutting the effects of Medicaid on poor people and 
children?
  The proposed work requirements basically make Medicaid beneficiaries 
submit paperwork every month to prove that they are working at least 80 
hours a month, but we already know that 64 percent of Medicaid 
beneficiaries are working. That is what the big fraud is. This chart 
right here shows that people who couldn't find other affordable health 
insurance and are working full-time is 44 percent of Medicaid adult 
recipients.
  Some are not working because of their inabilities and due to 
retirement. So 8 percent of them are not doing that, 20 percent are 
working part time, 12 percent we basically said it is better for you to 
be a caregiver and provide the caregiving, and we will cover your 
health insurance costs so you can provide the caregiving because that 
way the families stay in the home instead of going to their nursing 
home, which would cost all of us a ton more amount of money. So they 
are working.
  There are 10 percent not working due to illness or disability, and 
some are not working because we are smart enough to let people who go 
to school, but don't have the ability to get affordable insurance, 
allow some percentage, a small percentage of them to be on Medicaid 
too.
  So what is it that the House is really trying to say? They are really 
trying to sneak in a massive cut to Medicaid that will shut down 
hospitals, kick people off of Medicaid, make them go to emergency 
rooms, cost us all more money, and do nothing but perpetrate a fraud. 
When in reality, people are working and those that aren't working, we 
are happy that they are not working because one--could be due to an 
illness, or they are a caregiver, or they are working part time.
  So all of these issues show that the House isn't serious. In 2018, 
another State tried this, ``Oh, brilliant idea. We're going to make a 
work requirement.'' Now, if I hadn't been in the U.S. Senate at the 
same time the House of Representatives tried another canard--``Oh, 
we're going to block grant Medicaid. We're going to block grant it and 
it's going to be great, and then we're going to save money.''
  No, no, the hospitals, the Republican county commissioners, the 
jails--everybody basically said, ``Don't do that. You're going to cut 
Medicaid--you're going to decimate the safety net that makes healthcare 
work in our communities. Don't do it.'' And because we had three 
Republicans join us, we were able to stop that ridiculous idea of block 
granting Medicaid.
  But in 2018, Arkansas tried the same thing that the House of 
Representatives are now suggesting. They became the first State to 
establish a work requirement for certain Medicaid enrollees. It took 
just 4 months, and the new requirement got 18,000 people kicked off 
Medicaid.
  Where do you think those people go? You think they don't have any 
healthcare needs? You don't think they go to the hospital and cost us 
all a bunch load more money? That is what they do. They cost all of us 
a bunch load more money.
  A Federal court ruling stopped Arkansas from implementing that rule a 
year later because it disrupted so many people because of the work 
requirement.
  And after that, a Harvard University study found that Arkansas' work 
requirement didn't lead to more people getting jobs. It actually took 
away their health insurance, and then they didn't have the ability to 
stay as healthy and get jobs. So is that what is going to happen across 
our country, to my State, all because the Republicans are putting this 
nonsensical idea on the table?
  Still, the issue is that other States tried the same thing, and other 
States also stopped their ridiculous idea. So this isn't something that 
works, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
more than 780,000 Washingtonians could be subject to a work requirement 
and are at risk of having their coverage taken away.

  Now, I am already done fighting with the DOGE people who basically 
said, ``Oh, waste, fraud and abuse, and Social Security.'' Really? My 
constituent not only had his Social Security benefits cut; they said he 
was dead. He wasn't dead. And not only did he go there, wait in line, 
crummy service, and say that he wasn't dead--they still, after that--
after he notified Social Security and told him he wasn't dead, and I 
want my Social Security, they had the audacity to go back into his bank 
account and claw back money out of his bank account, still saying that 
he was dead.
  Now, is that what really the House of Representatives wants us to do, 
harass the heck out of 780,000 Washingtonians to write a proposal every 
month, telling them they are somehow doing something? Or do we want to 
set up a program to cover those who can't get affordable insurance and 
cover them because we don't want to pay the extra costs at the 
emergency room?
  That is what we are trying to say. We don't want to pay the extra 
costs. So this proposal just doesn't make sense, and so I am not 
surprised that I got a copy of a letter passed on by health officials 
in my State that said, ``The undersigned here are writing to you to 
oppose any cuts to the Medicaid rates, any adjustments to the federal 
Medicaid assistance program, to our healthcare systems, or changes to 
the direct payment programs.''
  Well, what is surprising about this is it is signed by the Republican 
county commissioners, the Republican State representatives. The people 
in that community who know what it takes to build a healthy community, 
they sent a letter basically saying, Don't do the very things that the 
House of Representatives just did.
  My own constituents, bipartisan Republicans and Democrats, though, 
already said, Don't do this because you will cut the legs out from 
under us. We won't have rural hospitals. And just think about all the 
jails that are dealing with the opioid and fentanyl epidemic, and now, 
all of a sudden, you are taking Medicaid away from them. What are they 
going to do? You are going to make all those people go to an emergency 
room? Now, all of our emergency rooms, instead of these people being in 
a detention facility, are all going to be in an emergency room crowding 
us all out from getting healthcare?
  So this idea is ridiculous, and people all across my State are 
already speaking out about the choices or lack thereof. I spoke to a 
Medicaid patient in eastern Washington who was worried that she 
wouldn't be able to be supported when she needed to go to a nursing 
home because where is all the money going to go?
  We are trying to save enough money by putting people on Medicaid, so 
the people who do need to go to a facility can, but a resident told me 
that without Medicaid, her father wouldn't have been able to afford 
treatment or medication for his mental health issues.
  So that is really what we want to do? Give a tax break to wealthy, 
wealthy people and to corporations, just so we can be kicking poor 
people off of Medicaid?
  So I hope our colleagues will not allow this to happen. I hope that 
our Senate colleagues will be ready to show that the defeat of the 
fentanyl epidemic needs to be addressed, and helping Medicaid continue 
with substance abuse treatment is key.
  Recent polls show that 77 percent of Americans have a favorable view 
of Medicaid, including 64 percent of Republicans. And as I said, last 
week, I

[[Page S2878]]

met with the healthcare providers, mostly from central Washington, who 
said, ``You literally will take away essential revenue that keeps our 
hospitals open, and our State could see five to seven hospitals 
close.''
  That is not what we want to see out of a budget proposal to give a 
tax break to wealthy corporations and individuals. So I ask my 
colleagues to make sure that we are fighting these cuts to Medicaid. 
Our communities are demanding it. They are watching, and just like with 
the block granting of Medicaid, they are not going to believe another 
idea that has already been tried and failed and doesn't even meet the 
goals of being successful in making the most affordable healthcare 
possible and keeping the cost down on all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this House proposal on Medicaid.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.