Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd estimates 4 percent of the people on Medicaid in his district could lose access to the federal program because of a sweeping law enacted by Congress, but that the reduction will improve the program for others.
“I think we need to make sure that those who are losing (Medicaid) are not working or trying to work or not going to school or not volunteering. If they are, we need to make sure that they're protected by this,” Hurd, who represents Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, said. “It's the individuals who are otherwise able-bodied, adults who are able to work and contribute that should, I think, be contributing towards Medicaid and it's not appropriate to take money from the most needy and give it to those who don't have that need.”
Hurd was among the Congressional Republicans to vote for the budget reconciliation bill that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will trim $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade and potentially add more than $3 trillion to the national debt, a number Hurd is dubious of.
“I think we need to take with a grain of salt what the Congressional Budget Office is saying, particularly when it comes to dynamic scoring and the effect that this legislation will have on our economy going forward. I think we need to grow the revenue side of the pie, and this legislation helps us achieve that with the extension of the tax cuts and other provisions, regulatory reforms that we're talking about,” Hurd said.
In an interview with Colorado Matters Senior Host Ryan Warner, Hurd discussed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and its impacts on energy, healthcare and the parts of it he’s not a fan of.
“We authorized a debt limit up to $5 trillion. I don't like that addition to the deficit, but I do think that it's important for us to look at larger structural changes when it comes to spending. Some of the SALT, state and local tax deduction issues,I am concerned that those fundamentally operate as a subsidy from red states to blue states. That's another example of something in this bill that wasn't perfect,” Hurd said.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity
Ryan Warner: Central to your campaign was opportunity at home — that your constituents wouldn't have to send their children to metro areas for jobs, healthcare, education. Now, this law is nearly 900 pages. Would you point us to a provision or two that you think will build opportunity for say, someone getting ready for their freshman year at Moffat County High School?
Rep. Jeff Hurd: Sure. Well, I would point specifically to the oil and gas issues and the leases with respect to energy, including coal leases. Energy is a big deal in the 3rd Congressional District, and making sure that we support those industries is one of the things that inspired me to run in the first place. And so, if you're looking for one specific example, I would point to the oil and gas and coal leases that are part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. There are other natural resource issues as well — timber sales, timber leasing — that also matter to the 3rd Congressional District. But those are three specific things that come top of mind right away to benefiting the people that I represent in Colorado's 3rd district.
Warner: How much more production would you envision?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I would hope that it would be substantial, Ryan. We should see increased production, not only in Western and Southern Colorado, but throughout the country. This is not just an issue that matters to rural Colorado, but it matters to our country as a whole. And I've always said that bad energy policy operates as a hidden tax on every single American. It's not only in your electric bill every month, but it's also in your grocery bill. It's the cost of fuel that you fill up on your tank. So, all of these issues together, I think, should benefit not only the 3rd Congressional District, but our country and our economy as a whole.
Warner: Would this potentially keep the Craig Power Station in operation?
Rep. Hurd: I think we would need to see what is happening at the Craig Power Station. I think that's maybe more of a more difficult situation. I think that power station is already looking to transition, but in terms of other opportunities for traditional hydrocarbons, I think there's more of an opportunity for keeping those industries in place and expanding them. But when it comes to Craig, I know we've talked about opportunities to maybe transition that to natural gas. Nuclear might be another option, so I'd hesitate to comment specifically on that one particular power station. But I think the reforms that we're talking about in this legislation, the expansions that we're talking about with energy, would be beneficial to power stations just like those in my district, in Moffat County and Craig.
Warner: Would you like to see nuclear power in Craig specifically? Is that what I heard you say there?
Rep. Hurd: I think nuclear is something that the people in Moffat County would welcome as well as Pueblo County. I've heard that also, Ryan. It's good jobs, it's safe, it's clean, it's reliable energy. That's the type of technology that I think can be a win-win. And that's a technology that I think can unite Republicans and Democrats.
Warner: What about that same freshman at Moffat County High School looking to their future and who's worried about climbing temperatures and worsening weather because of climate change? Who says, "Gosh, we're going to bring more fossil fuels out from under the ground and it's going to be hotter and the weather's going to be more chaotic?"
Rep. Hurd: Well, I'd tell that freshman, if you genuinely care about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, then you ought to support as much energy production in Colorado as possible, because we do it safer, cleaner, and more environmentally responsible than anyone else in the world. If this is indeed a global problem, which it is, we ought to support responsible energy development here in the United States, and specifically in Western and Southern Colorado, compared to more carbon intensive generation resources that you'd see from places like Africa or in India or in China.
Warner: Yes, but carbon is still carbon and even more responsible development of say coal and oil and gas, releases greenhouse gases, certainly much more than renewable energy.
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think a couple things. First, I don't think the footprint for renewable energy is completely green. If you look at the mining, the manufacturing, the transportation, it's a very hydrocarbon intensive industry as well. But I would say what we're doing when we're promoting the United States energy also is we're offsetting more carbon intensive generation in other parts of the world. So the natural gas that we're producing in Colorado, I would much rather have that exported to other countries where we could offset some more carbon intensive coal generation, for example, from China, which doesn't have as high quality coal as what we have here in the United States. So I think we can have a win-win solution when it comes to natural gas, oil, renewables as well and nuclear you mentioned as well, Ryan. I think that's something that can be a win-win for our environment, for our communities and for our energy economy.
Warner: I'll note that just south of Craig, there's a massive solar installation. Where does your district stand on the renewable front?
Rep. Hurd: I think my district is an all-of-the-above district, or I say, best-of-the-above. We need to find the right energy resources that match the demands that we have. One of the challenges that we have, Ryan, with this economy is an increased demand on our electric grid. And so making sure that we have responsible, safe, reliable and affordable energy is a key priority. And so, I think people in my district would say, we need to take it on a case-by-case basis and make sure that this energy resource matches the needs of the community, but also fundamentally, I think people are open to all sorts of energy across the district.
Warner: Do you think that this bill advantages green energy or disadvantages it?
Rep. Hurd: One of the key priorities for me was making sure that we're creating a stable regulatory environment that allows companies that have made investments and planning decisions to continue with those planning decisions. Ultimately, it's a bill that is not perfect, but in my view, it has more positives than negatives. And one of those is that it does land at a place, I think, that allows for renewable companies that are looking at those sorts of investments like solar, particularly in the 3rd Congressional District, like wind. They're still able to make those investments and that planning horizon that they had timed when they originally made those investments that will create that environment that allows them to have that stability when it comes to their planning. So it's not perfect, but I think pragmatically looking at it, it's a step in the right direction for our district.
Warner: What is least perfect about it? What did you bite your tongue about when you voted for it?
Rep. Hurd: Sure. One of the things that I did not like about this legislation is it did not include Secure Rural Schools reauthorization funding that was stripped from the Senate side of the bill. I'm not exactly sure what happened there. We passed it out of the House. That's something that's really important to the 3rd Congressional District.
Also, the spending piece, Ryan. We authorized a debt limit up to $5 trillion. I don't like that addition of the deficit, but I do think that it's important for us to look at larger structural changes when it comes to spending. Some of the SALT, state and local tax deduction issues, I am concerned that those fundamentally operate as a subsidy from red states to blue states. That's another example of something in this bill that wasn't perfect. But overall, when you look at the tax issues, when you look at help for the middle class, working class, particularly those folks in my district, those hardworking Coloradans, I felt like it was, on balance, the right thing to do. In addition to supporting our military, air traffic control improvements, all the things that you don't necessarily hear about in the news reports were a part of this big bill, and I thought it was important to support it for those reasons.
Warner: You mentioned the Secure Rural Schools program. So the idea here is that especially in Colorado and throughout the West, there are many rural districts that are surrounded by, adjacent to federal public lands that don't necessarily generate the kind of tax base that you'd see, say in an urban district. And so, this was a way of making sure that those schools had ample income. And what do you think the result of this is going to be in the third district?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I would say that's partially right. I think you might be referring to something else called PILT, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes issue, which is meant to compensate counties that have large proportions of federal land that aren't otherwise able to be taxed and used for the benefit of those counties. Secure Rules Schools funding is tied, in large part, to timber harvesting and timber management, but it's an important issue for school districts and for counties across the 3rd Congressional District.
I will tell you that when I meet with county commissioners — I met with 25 out of my 27 county commissioners that I'm fortunate enough to represent in the 3rd Congressional District — Secure Rural Schools funding, particularly for my rural counties, is near the top of the list of their concerns. In addition to the PILT, the Payment In Lieu of Taxes issue that I mentioned before, making sure that our counties have the resources that they need to take care of the lands. Because what you have, oftentimes, is counties spend lots of county money. They spend law enforcement resources, they spend human resources, they spend lots of money taking care of these federal lands, and we need to make sure that they're adequately compensated for those resources that they're expending on the federal lands and Secure Rural Schools funding and PILT funding are two ways to do that.
Warner: Okay. So do you think that you'd propose separate legislation then?
Rep Hurd: Yes. I'm on Secure Rural Schools reauthorization legislation. We'll handle that separately. I would love to have seen it gotten through sooner, but it's a fix that we're working on in a separate piece of legislation, I'm proud to co-sponsor that legislation.
Warner: All right. You talked about hard-working folks in your district. You talked even about the middle class and I guess I want to talk about the fact that some of those folks are on Medicaid, just because it's hard to make ends meet. And so let's transition to healthcare now. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates, we're looking at a trillion dollars in cuts over a decade, around 12 million people losing health insurance.
Plainly speaking, is healthcare in Western and Southern Colorado going to be better or worse off because of this legislation, this law?
Rep. Hurd: Ryan, first, let me talk about the issue that you raised, the hard-working families. Those are the types of families that should be supported by Medicaid and that we need to strengthen the Medicaid program precisely for those people that you're talking about, those who are working hard to make ends meet, that are pregnant moms, that are supporting young families. Those types of people, the most needy, are the ones that Medicaid was intended to support and protect and our legislation is consistent with protecting and supporting those vulnerable populations.
I would say, again, the legislation that we passed was not perfect, but there are common sense reforms that I think have public support. You mentioned the reduction in spending by a trillion dollars over 10 years. And when I was looking at this from the perspective of a public policymaker. First, the legislation has so many different parts to it and so many things that, on balance, I thought were worthy and deserving of support. One of the things that I looked at though when it comes to Medicaid was how spending has risen in the last several years, roughly 60 percent since 2019.
And one of the goals that we were looking at with respect to this legislation was to bring that Medicaid spending trajectory closer to pre-pandemic levels. It's not perfect. There's work that we need to do on all layers. A lot of the mechanisms when it comes to any of these savings, the reduction in funding won't take place for a number of years. And so there's a chance if we need to make changes, for us to make those changes.
Warner: Yeah. Why is it that the tax benefits come soon and the Medicaid cuts, for instance, come later? Let me just note later means after the midterms. Is there some political jockeying going on there?
Rep. Hurd: With respect to the tax piece of this, we're just continuing the current tax levels. It wouldn't make sense for me, from my perspective, for us to raise those taxes only then to lower them in the future. That's the sort of disruption to the business climate that I dislike and I don't think is good for our economy. That would, I think, wreck our economy if we're suddenly raising taxes only to reduce them at a later point.
With respect to the Medicaid healthcare and also the supplemental nutrition pieces of this, I don't think it would be a good idea for us to make those changes rapidly. And so that's why I think it's important in this legislation that the changes that we're talking about, the gradual ramp down, for example, in the provider fee with respect to Medicaid, that half of one percent decrease over that first year isn't scheduled to take place until 2028. And so there are work requirements pieces of this that are scheduled to take place earlier, but there's still time for all of these components of the bill for us to make preparations to talk about how we can strengthen rural healthcare for those who need it the most.
Warner: I will just point out that Senate Democrats put out a list of hospitals that might close because of cuts to Medicaid and of the six Colorado institutions they flagged, five are in your district: in Delta, in Rifle, La Jara, La Junta and Cortez. Are you confident those hospitals will be open five years from now?
Rep. Hurd: We need to do everything we can to protect those hospitals. I saw that list as well. Obviously, our rural hospitals rely on Medicaid. It's an essential part of the healthcare delivery system. We need to make sure that we're using those Medicaid dollars effectively and that we're protecting those most vulnerable populations and making sure that our hospitals have a healthy structure within which they can operate. So I will tell you, I'm not taking anything for granted. I'm working with our hospital executives, working with my team to make sure. And we also need to work with the State of Colorado because, remember, the federal match for the Medicaid expansion population under the Affordable Care Act is 90/10, so it's 90 federal dollars for every 10 state dollars.
We need to make sure that we're using those dollars correctly and efficiently and effectively so that we can keep those hospitals open. It is a top priority for me, Ryan, in the coming months and years to make sure that our rural hospitals have what they need, not only with respect to Medicaid, but so many of the other challenges that our rural hospitals face. It's not just Medicaid that are squeezing our rural healthcare providers, it's other issues — workforce, it's regulations, other sorts of impediments to successful healthcare delivery that I think we need to keep in mind.
Warner: I will say there's $50 billion in this law as a backstop for rural hospitals.
Jonathan Cohee runs Delta Health, so their hospital was on that list I mentioned. He said the hospital would not close because of these cuts, but could lose services and jobs. He adds those impacts would be felt in the Delta community:
“You need the healthcare and you need the education. We have a great education system here. K through 12 here is amazing. We have a technical college, that's very attractive. We have a lot of people that raise some amazing kids and send them through and they're very successful for being here. But if you don't have healthcare then that causes you to migrate and go elsewhere.”
What are your thoughts?
Rep. Hurd: We need to make sure that Delta Hospital, it not only stays in business but is successful, financially solvent, keeps those jobs, supports that economy and make sure that we have the services not only from the healthcare perspective, but also from the economy-wide perspective that we need.
Ensuring a healthy economic climate was part of what we were doing in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I'd look at the extension of tax cuts. We hear in the media how it benefits the wealthiest folks. But I will tell you in my district, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, an extension of the tax cuts from 2017, a child tax credit increase, those help working families and middle class families that predominate in the 3rd Congressional District and that are part of that economy that Jonathan was talking about in Delta. And we need to make sure that we don't look at this just from one perspective but from a holistic perspective. And that's something that I think in this bill we are accomplishing.
Warner: But aren't those gains erased if you're on Medicaid and you lose it?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I guess I would respectfully push back a little bit on the premise. I mean, when we're talking about the people that need it the most in Delta County, for example, Ryan, if they're working hard, if they are pregnant women, if they are parents with children, they're protected by Medicaid. Those are the folks that are in the most vulnerable situations. The disabled, also the elderly who are dual eligible under Medicare and Medicaid, those are the people that we're protecting when it comes to this legislation and we're ensuring that they have the healthcare that they need in order to live their lives, in order to work their jobs. And if you're not even able to get a job, Ryan, you can satisfy the work requirements that we're talking about — which again won't be implemented right away — there's a runway leading up to this. You can satisfy those by going to school, by volunteering 20 hours a week, Ryan, you can stay on Medicaid.
We need to make sure that the resources that we have for Medicaid are available for those who need it most. And I think that this legislation, again, it's not perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction. There's a lot of work that remains to be done. And I'm committed to working with folks in Delta County and Pueblo County and Otero County and Las Animas County and beyond on finding that right balance.
Warner: I think the elephant in the room here is that, so far as I understand it, you believe there are people in your district on Medicaid who should not be. Who are they?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think there are folks that are able-bodied, that are able to work, that for whatever reason choose not to either volunteer or go to school or work who are availing themselves of Medicaid benefits or who are also dual eligible in another state for Medicaid. And one of the other things that we're talking about with the waste, fraud and abuse that's coming out of this legislation is ensuring that individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid in Colorado aren't also enrolled elsewhere.
So we did a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I was looking at it could potentially mean four percent of the people in the 3rd Congressional District might lose Medicaid coverage as a whole because of this legislation. I think we need to make sure that those who are losing it are not working or trying to work or not going to school or not volunteering. If they are, we need to make sure that they're protected by this. It's the individuals who are otherwise able-bodied adults who are able to work and contribute that should, I think, be contributing towards Medicaid and it's not appropriate to take money from the most needy and give it to those who don't have that need.
Warner: Let's take a break from budget reconciliation for a moment. You sit on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which oversees a lot of federal R&D. This is an administration that envisions massive cuts, for instance, to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, halving the National Science Foundation budget. I note that France, meanwhile, is wooing researchers from the U.S. with cold, hard cash. What will these cuts mean for the U.S.’ standing in global science?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think we need to make sure that the United States retains its preeminent status and we are investing those federal dollars in programs that have the most return and that make the most sense. One of the things that's tough for me as someone on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, Ryan, is to figure out, how are we using these dollars effectively? Because sometimes in science you don't necessarily get a positive result, and so you're spending money and investing government resources on an experiment or a process that doesn't necessarily yield results. So how do we measure the effective use of those dollars in what is the proper scientific process and make sure that we're not wasting those dollars, that we're using them efficiently even if the result isn't perfect?
And my view is we need to have a good relationship between the public sector and the private sector. Oftentimes, these government funding programs, Ryan, de-risk private investment that's critical to these industries and making sure that we retain our preeminent status, whether it's ag, whether it's AI, whether it's quantum computing, all of these issues. I think it's important that we continue to have those federal resources and that's something that I'm going to be advocating for. I know we've talked about some of these cuts. I think there's a right answer, Ryan, that includes funding for these critical government programs that not only help our economy, but they help our national security as well.
Warner: Do you think the U.S. is sending a message that it values its scientists and researchers?
Rep. Hurd: Absolutely. I think I'm proud of the great work that the United States government is doing. We need to make sure that our investments in science and technology are the right investments. We need to be talking about things also like critical minerals and rare earth elements, making sure that we have the resources, the raw materials that we need in order to power our economy. That's something also that I think we need to be having a discussion and what our investment is.
From my perspective, I will say I'm very proud of the scientific and industrial work that our country is doing. Is it perfect? No. Are there areas that we can improve on? Certainly. Was there waste, fraud and abuse in the Biden administration when you look at some of the grant dollars and where those were going to? Without a doubt. We need to claw those back. But for the essential programs that benefit our economy, benefit our country, benefit our national security, I'm going to be a vocal advocate of keeping those.
Warner: So, a 55 percent cut to the National Science Foundation, you think that's the right number?
Rep. Hurd: I think the right number ... with respect to the National Science Foundation, I think I need to look at the specifics of that budget number. Just as I sit here right now I'm not sure what the right number would be. I think the question would be where are those dollars going? How are they being used effectively and what is our return on investment? I think that's a fair question that every taxpayer should have, and that's something that I'm going to be looking at here in Congress. What that exact number is, I can't tell you as I sit here. But certainly I think we should be looking at ways to more effectively spend money with NSF and NOAA and other places as well and maybe increase investment.
I mean, we're talking about air traffic control, the bill that we passed, increased infrastructure investment by billions of dollars, increased investment in military, in border security, in our strategic petroleum reserve, in water storage construction projects, Ryan, that's something that you don't really hear about reporting in the media, but there's financial investments that we're making. So we can talk about the cuts and the reductions and the savings, absolutely. But I think to be fair, we should also be talking about the increased investments that we're doing as a Republican Party and as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill and beyond.
Warner: Let's talk about some of the investments. So this law means that immigration and customs enforcement will be better funded than any other domestic federal law enforcement agency, including the FBI. Newsweek reports that ICE's budget will be bigger than most of the world's militaries. Why aren't we seeing reform of a system before we see massive shifts in investment?
Rep. Hurd: That's a great question, Ryan. I think in order to reform the system, first we need to make sure we're addressing the underlying problem, which is an open border and illegal immigration and the lack of control over our country's borders. And that, to me, is a fundamental basic first step. If we're going to talk about reforming the system, reforming immigration, we cannot do that in a responsible way without ensuring we have a secure border. Now we've seen a dramatic decrease in the number of border crossings. I was actually down in Nogales earlier this year and met with Border Patrol there and saw the facilities that we have that are basically empty compared to what they were a year ago or two years ago, where they were basically full.
That secure border is something we cannot take for granted, though, Ryan. And so we need to make sure that we have the resources and laws and technologies in place to secure that border, to keep it secure. Once we have that in place, then I think it's certainly reasonable for us to talk about reform. Our asylum system is badly broken; it's open to abuse. Making those changes and making those reforms is essential. But the first basic fundamental obligation is to stop the sort of arterial bleeding that we saw at the border with a lack of a secure border.
Warner: Well, I guess I'm trying to square what you just told us there, which is that these detention facilities are relatively empty, with the idea that the U.S. has just infused a massive amount of money into ICE. This whole conversation has been about wise use of federal dollars. Is that a wise use?
Rep. Hurd: Absolutely. I don't think we can be complacent, Ryan, when it comes to these facilities. We may have low numbers now, but if we don't have the resources in place, those numbers could easily come up again in the future, including with the future presidential administration. We need to make sure that as Congress, we exercise our responsibility to keep the country safe, to secure our borders, and that we have the resources and laws in place that will prevent us from backsliding. The cartels that are south of the border are multi-billion — with a B — dollar cartels. They smuggle people and drugs across our border. If you think they're just going to be complacent because of a few presidential orders and they're going to say, “Oh, we're giving up on this business,” you're crazy.
Warner: Representative, let's end on debt. So it feels like all my life I've heard from politicians that we will one day need to cut entitlement spending because of the nation's ballooning debt. We're here. But somehow we're cutting Medicaid spending and adding to the national debt — $3.4 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Will you square that for us?
Rep. Hurd: Sure. Well, I would first caution listeners to be careful of the Congressional Budget Office and the projections that they make. They have not always been reliable, particularly when it comes to previous big pieces of legislation that we passed out of Congress. And so I think we need to take with a grain of salt what the Congressional Budget Office is saying, particularly when it comes to dynamic scoring and the effect that this legislation will have on our economy going forward.
I think we need to grow the revenue side of the pie, and this legislation helps us achieve that with the extension of the tax cuts and other provisions, regulatory reforms that we're talking about. But it does not solve all the problems. And I told you, Ryan, up front, one of the pieces that I'm unhappy with this legislation on is the increase in the debt limit. “Public debt is a public curse,” James Madison once said, and this is something that we need to make sure that we are addressing on the revenue side, which I think this bill is helping to address, but also on the spending side. And when it comes to these mandatory spending programs, making sure that they are effective, that they're reliable, and that they're functioning as they're intended to do is something that we need to take seriously. I know you've heard it before from other politicians, and I will tell you this is something that I take seriously and I hope to work across the aisle to make those changes when it comes to the spending side of that equation.
| This story is part of a collection tracking the impacts of President Donald Trump’s second administration on the lives of everyday Coloradans. Since taking office, Trump has overhauled nearly every aspect of the federal government; journalists from CPR News, KRCC and Denverite are staying on top of what that means for you. Read more here. |
