Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am proud today to join Senators Cornyn and Leahy in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009, a bill designed to help States and localities approach spending on corrections in a more rational manner, better manage growth in the prison and jail populations, and increase public safety. Over 2,200,000 American adults are incarcerated in state and local prisons and jails; the prison population alone nearly tripled between 1987 and 2007, from 585,000 to almost 1,600,000 inmates. States, in turn, have increased spending on corrections by $40 billion in the past 20 years. Despite the continued growth of the inmate population, about half the states plan to cut corrections budgets for fiscal year 2010 amid budget shortfalls. Most policymakers have limited access to detailed, data-driven explanations about changes in crime, arrests, convictions, and prison and jail population trends. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will provide them with the resources to undergo a thorough analysis of the drivers of growth, and to create and implement policy options to manage that growth. Specifically, the legislation will create a two-part grant program for governments to analyze criminal justice trends, develop policy options to address growth in the corrections system, and implement and measure the impact of the policy changes. Through Phase 1 grants, government entities will be able to conduct a comprehensive analysis of corrections data, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of state and local spending on corrections, and develop policy options suggested by the analysis. Phase 2 grants will provide funds to help government entities implement those policy options and to measure their effectiveness. Model programs in several states have already found this kind of data study helpful in managing the costs of a growing inmate population. An analysis of prison data in my home state of Rhode Island, for example, prompted legislation to standardize the calculation of earned time credits, establish risk reduction program credits, and require the use of risk assessments to inform parole release decisions. In Texas, the home State of one of my cosponsors, Senator Cornyn, the solution was much different but equally effective--following its analysis, the State invested $227 million on treatment programs and residential facilities to curb population growth, which averted spending $523 million on new prisons. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will help state and local governments spend their limited corrections budgets in a more targeted, rational way to both manage inmate population growth and protect public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am proud today to join Senators Cornyn and Leahy in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009, a bill designed to help States and localities approach spending on corrections in a more rational manner, better manage growth in the prison and jail populations, and increase public safety. Over 2,200,000 American adults are incarcerated in state and local prisons and jails; the prison population alone nearly tripled between 1987 and 2007, from 585,000 to almost 1,600,000 inmates. States, in turn, have increased spending on corrections by $40 billion in the past 20 years. Despite the continued growth of the inmate population, about half the states plan to cut corrections budgets for fiscal year 2010 amid budget shortfalls. Most policymakers have limited access to detailed, data-driven explanations about changes in crime, arrests, convictions, and prison and jail population trends. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will provide them with the resources to undergo a thorough analysis of the drivers of growth, and to create and implement policy options to manage that growth. Specifically, the legislation will create a two-part grant program for governments to analyze criminal justice trends, develop policy options to address growth in the corrections system, and implement and measure the impact of the policy changes. Through Phase 1 grants, government entities will be able to conduct a comprehensive analysis of corrections data, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of state and local spending on corrections, and develop policy options suggested by the analysis. Phase 2 grants will provide funds to help government entities implement those policy options and to measure their effectiveness. Model programs in several states have already found this kind of data study helpful in managing the costs of a growing inmate population. An analysis of prison data in my home state of Rhode Island, for example, prompted legislation to standardize the calculation of earned time credits, establish risk reduction program credits, and require the use of risk assessments to inform parole release decisions. In Texas, the home State of one of my cosponsors, Senator Cornyn, the solution was much different but equally effective--following its analysis, the State invested $227 million on treatment programs and residential facilities to curb population growth, which averted spending $523 million on new prisons. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act will help state and local governments spend their limited corrections budgets in a more targeted, rational way to both manage inmate population growth and protect public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. To go back to the first point about the public option, in fact, being an option, I think everybody here understands the government is going to help pay the costs of health care, particularly for low-income families who can't work to get the funds together to pay for the cost of health care. As the Senator from Ohio knows so well, wages have increased just a tiny bit and health insurance costs have gone through the roof. The result has been that families are getting clobbered, so they need some help. So the health care reform bill we have before us will help those families who are having such trouble affording their insurance. I think it is worth confirming the help that will come to American families does not require them to join the public option. They will get the same benefit based on their income and their family's health care needs whether they choose the public option or a private insurance carrier that is offering a program through the exchange. As long as you show up at the exchange, as I understand it--and I would like to have the Senator from Ohio confirm this--you can take that government subsidy that is yours and your family's and you can spend it at the public option, you can spend it with Blue Cross, you can spend it with Aetna, you can spend it with any insurance company-- private, for profit, nonprofit, public option--that is doing business in the exchange. You can take your subsidy and you can go there and spend it there. You are not tied to the public option by your subsidy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It provides no health care value at all and it is going in the wrong direction. Insurance company administrative expense is up over 100 percent. I go to Rhode Island and I talk to doctors and community health centers, for whom 50 percent of their personnel are devoted not to providing any health care but to fighting with the insurance company. So the notion that it is the Government that will get between you and your doctor is truly the big lie. It is the insurance companies that are the ones that, day after day--a manner of their business model--get between Americans and their doctors. We are trying to cure that and we will. I thank the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It has happened in my family as well. A member of my family whom I loved very much went to the National Institutes of Health to get the best recommendations he could for a very terrible diagnosis he had received. When he went back to New York, where he lived, and filed his claim and began the treatment that the National Institutes of Health top expert on his diagnosis had recommended, his insurance company came back and said I am sorry, no, that is not the indicated treatment. They dropped--tried to, anyway--dropped a bureaucrat between his doctor, a world expert, and the care he was entitled to. The Senator and I hear these stories all the time. People are not making them up. They happen to us. They happen to people we know. Unfortunately, unlike my family member who fought back and was able to convince the insurance company to honor what the expert at the National Institutes of Health indicated was the standard and approved treatment for that type of condition, many people are overwhelmed by the illness, they are overwhelmed by the paperwork, they are overwhelmed by the battle with the insurance company. They believe what they are told and they allow themselves to get rolled over. If an insurance company only gets 1 in 10, it still saves them money when they deny people that care. It is in their business model to deny their insureds the care that they paid for, once they have the nerve to get sick. That is a recurring and consistent problem that just plain never comes up in the government programs. It is unique to our very unique position as being the one country in the world that turns over our health care to the profit-making private sector for things we cannot negotiate on, for things that are not elective. If you do not want to buy a bicycle, you don't have to buy a bicycle. They have to come to you on price. But if you need a heart transplant, there is not a lot of negotiation. We turn that over to the profit sector and as a result we have higher costs and worse results than any country.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, who has come to this floor so often to share the stories of Ohioans in our health care system, which are heartbreaking, which are tragic; which involve people being thrown completely out of the program when they have the temerity to get sick, which involve families going broke who had insurance, when they find out the insurance policy had holes in it that they have fallen through, when they find out when they become sick they not only have as their adversary the illness they are fighting but also the insurance company they have to fight on the other side--over and over again you have come here with those stories. If Senator Brown's experience is anything like mine in Rhode Island, I don't get those letters about the VA system. I don't get those letters about TRICARE. Sure, there are glitches now and then; any big system has its problems. But the massive cascade of human tragedy the Senator represents so effectively on this floor with the letters he brings from home--that is not coming out of these systems. That is coming out of the private health care system.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator will yield again, we are approaching Veterans Day, a time when the Nation takes a moment from our busy lives to pay our respect and our honor to those who wear the uniform of the United States and are willing to put themselves in harm's way. I think there is not a person in this body who does not feel a great loyalty and pride in our Armed Services. We want them to get nothing but the best. What do we give them for health care? If they are active, they get a government plan called TRICARE. Once they retire from active service and become veterans, they go into the Veterans' Administration. So at least one measure of the quality of government health care, in addition to the success of Medicare in reaching a population that had been deprived of adequate care for generations until Medicare came along, our seniors, is that those very people whom we are about to spend the week honoring, and for whom we insist on the very best, one of the ways we pay them honor and respect is by giving them among the very best health care in the world, government health care, TRICARE and Veterans' Administration care.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request that the time of the quorum call be charged evenly to both sides under morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we go into a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I will be speaking for only 4 or 5 minutes. I see Senator DeMint. I ask unanimous consent that I follow him. But I will be considerably briefer than Senator Webb.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. I wish to take a different view than our distinguished colleague from Virginia. He comes from a military background and he views this from that lens. I come from a prosecutor's and lawyer's background. I see it through a different lens. I take exception to a number of the concerns the distinguished Senator from Virginia elucidated. My concern is, the balancing of those concerns and the determination as to on which side, military commissions or traditional law enforcement prosecution, the government should come down on is one that should not be a legislative determination. We have executive officials who are very capable of making this determination. It is at the soul of prosecutorial discretion to decide whom to charge, what to charge, and in what forum to bring the charge. I think we are in the wrong location, trying to inject ourselves as the legislative branch of government into the executive determination as to where a case should be brought. It may very well be that a great number of these cases should indeed be brought in military commissions. But I do not think it is up to us as Members of the Senate to force the executive branch's hands. A second point is, we have had very bad luck with these military commissions so far. Many believe the procedures for those commissions did not afford adequate process to the accused, and, as a result, the perceived legitimacy of the commissions was undermined. That is the finding of the Detention Policy Task Force. Some of those shortcomings have been improved upon recently. But we are in a stage, at this point, in which article III courts--the Federal American courts--have handled 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants. Of those, 75 cases are still pending in our courts, but 195 defendants have been convicted. Our conviction rate has been 91 percent. Our Bureau of Prisons currently holds 355 terrorists in its facilities, by it is own estimation, 216 international terrorists, and 139 domestic terrorists. So regular, traditional American law enforcement, prosecution by the Department of Justice, is a tried-and-true vehicle for prosecuting and punishing terrorists. By contrast, the Gitmo military tribunals have convicted three detainees. After all those years of trouble and effort, 289 defendants convicted in our criminal courts, three in our military commissions. So I submit there may be very good logic for those military commissions, but it is not a wise decision and not properly our decision to force the hand of the executive branch of government and close down the side of the war on terrorism that has been most effective at incarcerating and punishing our terrorist enemies. I yield the floor and, again, thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be controlled by the Democratic side; that colloquies be allowed among the speakers; and that the speakers be recognized, first, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, then the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and then as recognition may be sought on the Democratic side after that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. One further unanimous consent request, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow follow Senator Merkley after Senator Lautenberg has spoken.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the period for speakers be extended for an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have joined my colleagues on the floor this evening to discuss the need for health insurance reform, which is a critical component of the health care reform package that the Senate will soon consider. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fond of suggesting to the American people that our current health care system is fundamentally fine, fundamentally sound, and all it needs is some minor tweaks. But Rhode Islanders who have faced down their insurance companies over the denial of benefits they paid for will tell you that idea is dead wrong. As they and many other Americans have found to be painfully true, our current system of health care is all too often a mirage concocted by health insurance companies to extract premiums from consumers while denying coverage when it is actually needed. Reform of this system of delusion is needed and it is needed now. As someone said the other day: Americans have all the health care they need until they need it. Then the insurance company comes and interferes. Those profit-driven companies focus on share price and quarterly earnings and other telltales of the business world and are only too happy to diligently mail those premium notices and collect those payments when you are feeling well. But when illness strikes, they vanish, they disappear, hiding behind stacks of forms, automated 800 numbers, with no human to be found, and weeks and weeks of delay and denial. The insurance company Humana pulled just such a stunt a few years ago. In May of 2006, a Humana policyholder was diagnosed with a rare and advanced form of liver cancer. Without treatment, he was not expected to live more than 4 years. But in September of that year, his doctor, a board-certified interventional radiologist, recommended a course of treatment for the cancer involving a new technology, expensive but proven to be effective. The insurance company policy explicitly covered such radiological treatment. At this point, it is an inspirational story, a terminally ill patient whose persistent and caring doctor found a technological advance that could extend his life. But when the insurer Humana became involved, this patient's bureaucratic nightmare began. The treatment recommended by the doctor is widely accepted. It is FDA approved. It is reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid, and it is covered by several large insurance plans. But Humana's medical director denied coverage. He denied it on the basis that it was ``experimental/investigational, not identified as widely used or generally accepted.'' Humana decided to deny this lifesaving treatment in spite of the fact that the insurance company medical director, the same fellow who made that determination, later admitted in court that: He has never performed [the] treatment, consulted with another physician about the treatment, or even read any literature on the topic. Without ever having performed this treatment, without ever having consulted with another physician about this treatment, without ever having read any literature on the topic, he reached the decision that this treatment was ``experimental/investigational . . . not identified as widely used [or] generally accepted,'' leaving this man with liver cancer and a doctor telling him how to cure it hanging in bureaucratic limbo. Since this policyholder could not pay out of pocket--it was an expensive treatment--the hospital treating him said it could not proceed with the treatment. With time running out and nowhere to turn, he hired an attorney to force Humana to stick to the terms of its health insurance policy. Thank goodness, he won. In a blistering opinion, the trial judge found that the company could not have possibly made a well-informed decision under the provisions of the plan. Rather, the judge found, the company relied on the flimsy pretext of an internal company guideline deeming the treatment ``experimental.'' How good is that? You are the insurance company that has the decision on whether to pay. You have a rule that says you don't pay if it is experimental, and you create your own internal, independent guideline that decides, contrary to all the rest of the evidence, that it is experimental. It is like being able to grade your own exams, except that lives hang in the balance. The basis for that conclusion was two written summaries of medical articles by a private health insurance industry consultant. That is what they based that internal guideline on. They said it was based on written summaries of medical articles by a private health insurance industry consultant. It makes you feel pretty good as a customer of the insurance company to think that they are getting recommendations from their own private health insurance industry consultants, right? The real problem was this: The summaries were wrong. Neither of the articles actually concluded that the treatment was experimental. The whole thing was a big, complex, bureaucratic chase founded in falsehood. The court found that Humana inappropriately denied the treatment and ordered that it immediately pay for this patient's cancer treatment. What a waste--a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of resources. Worse than all of that, what a thing for this man to have to go through. Not enough that he has been diagnosed with a rare and fatal form of liver cancer, not enough that a doctor has told him that with the right treatment, he could extend his life, maybe long enough to see a daughter graduate, maybe long enough to see a son get married, maybe long enough to arrange his affairs for his family to do well after he has left them, on top of all that, he now had two battles to fight--one with his illness, one with his insurance company. We have heard a lot of hysterical propaganda lately about how health reform will put the government between you and your doctor. Indeed, the recent GOP health care bill on the House side has in its opening passages that it will not intervene in the doctor-patient relationship, suggesting that other proposals would intervene in the doctor-patient relationship. I submit that our colleagues on the other side are a lot less concerned about intervening in the doctor-patient relationship than they are about the Congress of the United States intervening in the insurer-to-insured relationship. I submit they are more concerned about leaving American insureds at the mercy of these insurance companies-- the place where they actually intervene between the patient and the doctor. The worry for the real American isn't that the government is interfering between them and their doctor; the worry is that when they get sick, that insurance company intervenes between them and their doctor. We hear it in Rhode Island, in Colorado, the State of the Presiding Officer. We hear it over and over. Indeed, one of the things they do is called rescission. Rescission is when you have paid your premiums, you have been a good customer, you think you are a customer in good standing, and something awful happens--an unexpected diagnosis, a terrible accident. Suddenly, you need to call on that insurance policy that you have paid for month after month, year after year, to see you through your time of illness or injury. Then what do they do? The first thing they do is send somebody in their administrative offices squirreling off through your file to look for something you did wrong when you filled out your form. If they can find a mistake, they yank the coverage you paid for all those years. During a recent study by House colleagues, committee investigators found a total of 19,776 rescissions from just three large insurance companies over 5 years; 19,776 families who thought they had coverage, who paid for coverage, who were good customers, but when they got sick, the insurance company turned on them, and, once again, they had to fight two battles--one against the illness or injury and one against the insurance company. The rescissions saved those three insurance companies $300 million, a third of a billion dollars. As a prosecutor would say, there is motive. When you look for real examples of bureaucratic interference, when you look for real examples that resemble death panels, you need look no further than the kind of story about this gentleman Humana turned on when he got his diagnosis. We are here not to encourage that, not to have the government do it, but to stop it, to put an end to it. In stark contrast to this patient's humiliation, having to pay attorney's fees out of pocket to fight the insurance company, having to try to cope with all this nonsense while suffering from a terminal illness, Humana executives and shareholders have done quite well. The company reported this week that its third-quarter profits are up 65 percent. Its CEO, Michael McCallister, was paid $5.2 million in 2008. Nice pay. Too bad the work is so mean-spirited. You might think the Humana story is extreme, an outlier, a rare, tragic case, but you would be wrong. The private health insurance industry torments Americans like that patient day-in and day-out, 17,000 of them just with the rescissions. Another example: In 2005, BlueCross of California denied a patient's claim for bone marrow treatment, writing only that its decision was ``based upon the member's specific circumstances and upon peer reviewed criteria including Medical Policy.'' What is that? What does that mean? ``Based upon the member's specific circumstances and upon peer reviewed criteria including Medical Policy''--what a lot of rigmarole. The State insurance commissioner stepped in and penalized the company because it didn't describe any reasons for its denial, nor did it cite provisions of the insurance policy upon which it relied, just ``based upon the member's specific circumstances and upon peer reviewed criteria including Medical Policy.'' You could make that up about anything. In essence, the insurance company denied that claim for no reason. That same year, the company denied another patient's claim for nutritional counseling to treat anorexia. In its notice of cancellation, the company wrote to its insured that ``nutritional counseling is only covered when the diagnosis is diabetes. Since the claim was not submitted with a diabetes diagnosis, the claim was denied.'' California's insurance regulator found that the company's reasoning directly contradicted the benefits listed under the policy which said that dietary counseling ``is covered if it is for the treatment of anorexia.'' Why do you make somebody who needs this health care go chasing through the policy to find the place where it actually says it is covered? Why make up a lie that it is not covered? There is an obvious reason: If you do that to enough people, some won't take the trouble. Some will fight back. Some will figure out that it is inaccurate. Some will go to the regulators. But some will give up. Of those who give up, you make money. BlueCross of California is owned by WellPoint, whose CEO, Angela Braly, made $9.8 million last year. Many years ago, Charles Dickens wrote a book called ``Bleak House.'' In ``Bleak House,'' there are a lot of story lines, but one of them is about two young people who are pursuing a case in the British courts. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce was the name of the litigation. It is described in ``Bleak House'' as a monster extending through the courts, through writs and clerks and judges. And the storyline through ``Bleak House'' is that eventually, through all this bureaucracy, through all this static, through all this nightmare, through all this hassle, the couple finally gets to the point where they achieve the inheritance that was theirs, and that was the subject of the litigation they needed to claim through this arduous ordeal. The problem: By the time they got the inheritance, it had all been eaten up, every penny and farthing, by all that process and all that delay. Our current system of private health insurance too often leaves policyholders feeling like that poor young couple in ``Bleak House,'' surrounded by bureaucracy; surrounded by people who are out to gouge you, not to help you; surrounded by people who turn their backs on you in your hour of need; surrounded by people who sold you all the health coverage you need until you really need it. Then they are looking for loopholes and trying to deny you coverage. We owe Americans better than that. We can build a system of health insurance about which Dickens would not be tempted to write or Franz Kafka for that matter. Let's build a system that prevents insurers from evading their promises--in which people can't be denied coverage for a preexisting condition; in which surprise annual or lifetime caps don't pitch you into bankruptcy; in which insurers compete on customer service, not on how to figure out ways to deny you coverage. That is the system we in Congress are striving to enact into law this year. One of the ways we will do this is by adding to the bill a public option. You can chase these insurance companies around until you are blue in the face. You can sic the regulators on them all day long. But they have been doing this for years. It is a habit. It is a pattern and practice. It is a business model. It is not going to change without competition forcing it. That is yet another one of the reasons a public option is so important in this debate. One of my fellow Rhode Islanders, Karen Ignagni, is actually the chief lobbyist for the health insurance industry. She said something the other day about the public option. She said that it would reduce payments ``to doctors and hospitals rather than driving real reforms that bring down costs and improve quality.'' I submit she has it exactly wrong, exactly backward. First, as we have crafted a public option, it would have to compete and negotiate for price, just like the private insurance industry does, no different than the insurance companies Ms. Ignagni represents. But more to the point, this idea that it will compete by reducing payments to doctors and not drive real reforms, I submit the exact opposite is true. It is the public option that will drive the real reforms. It is the public option that will pursue cost-effective quality improvements; that will pursue wellness and prevention for customers; that will find better ways to pay doctors for value, not for volume; that will take advantage of President Obama's investment in health information technology to transform American health care for the better. So I will close with that observation, and I will add one more thing. I have used examples from public records, but many of us here have had this experience personally. Someone in my family, whom I love very much--I would describe him as my best friend--got a terrible diagnosis some time ago, and his family and everybody who loves him gathered around to help him. One of the things that was recommended was that he go to the National Institutes of Health, where the best specialists for this terrible diagnosis he had can be found. So he went to the National Institutes of Health. Actually, I went with him because it is just up the road in Maryland--he had to come down from New York--and I wanted to be a good friend and a good family member and show support and be there with him. So I know firsthand he went up to NIH, and I know he spoke to that doctor, that world's best expert on this terrible diagnosis, and I know firsthand what he was told. I know exactly what he was told to do by that doctor. He went back home to New York with this course of treatment for his condition that had been given to him by the top specialist in the field in the country, the man recognized by the National Institutes of Health, and when he began that course of treatment, guess what his insurance company told him. ``I'm sorry, that's not the indicated treatment.'' Oh, really? Not indicated? By whom? By some person on the other end of the phone who has never even examined him? By some person on the other end of the phone who might not even have a medical degree? Why is it that every single time the insurance companies get involved and say something is not the ``indicated treatment,'' the indicated treatment is less expensive, the treatment they want is less expensive than what the doctor wants? You would think that maybe once in a while, just to throw us off, they might say: No, no, no, wait a minute, the indicated treatment is actually more expensive and better than what your doctor said, and we want you to have that. Has that ever happened? I do not think so. Every time the private health insurance industry steps in between you and your doctor and says: No, we are not covering that treatment, we don't care that your doctor has prescribed it--in this case, we don't even care that the top specialist in the country prescribed it--it is always to push you to a cheaper treatment. The terrible thing is that for every American like the man I love, for every American like him who fought back, who said: Nuts to that, I have been to the NIH, this is what they told me to do, this is what I am doing, some number will give up, some number will be defeated, already scared by a terrible diagnosis, already bombarded at home with forms and bills and things they do not know how to cope with, already trying to cope with issues like preparing their family for horrible news. Dealing with the difficulties of treatment, some number of them will give up, and they will let the insurance companies get away with it. For every one of them who dies a little earlier because they did not get the treatment they should have--for every one of them--we in this Congress need to get to work to make sure this kind of behavior is never permitted again. This is not a small matter. This hits home in every one of our States every day. So I am proud to support our health care reform. I think we are going to see this legislation through to the end, and we are going to get it right, and after all the scare mongering and all the stories about death panels and all the phony defense about the government getting between you and your doctor--when what they are really protecting is the right of the insurance company to step in and get between you and your doctor; that is what they are about--after all of that, what people are going to find, coming out, when they actually see the real results, is that, in fact, the world has changed for them. What Americans will see is that we will have changed the world for the better for people who are now in the grip of these greed-driven insurance companies. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer very much, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today I honor New Urban Arts of Providence, RI, which has been honored by the White House with the 2009 Coming Up Taller Award, the Nation's highest honor for out-of-school arts and humanities programs. New Urban Arts is a model for what the arts can do in the lives of our urban youth, giving them the opportunity to explore the limitless possibilities of their own imaginations and helping them apply what they discover to goals they set for their futures. New Urban Arts was founded in 1997 as a collaboration between local high school and college students, with the support of the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University. It has grown from those 14 students in a loft at Grace Church in downtown Providence into an organization that serves over 300 high school students every year. The New Urban Arts afterschool and summer programs provide these students with the opportunity to work with established local artists who act as both mentors and peers, with the young people creating new works of art that reflect their experiences. We know that for youth who are on their own after school, the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. are a danger zone, a peak time for juvenile crime and experimentation with drugs and alcohol. Not only does New Urban Arts give youth in Providence a place to go, it provides them with a safe space where they can express themselves through many different art mediums and with people who can nurture their talent. This includes members from Rhode Island's acclaimed arts community, which has long understood the need to invest in our state's youth and arts education. And luckily for the people of Rhode Island, the New Urban Arts gallery and exhibition spaces allow all of us to share in the joy of that new talent. Our investment in the youth of Providence has paid dividends. Three- quarters of the students who participate in the New Urban Arts program are low-income and over half live in neighborhoods where the poverty rate is four times the national rate. Despite these challenges, over 90 percent of the seniors in this group graduate high school and attend college. When I was attorney general of Rhode Island, I saw what too often happened to students who did not know how to set goals for themselves or understand the importance of education--they ended up in the juvenile justice system. New Urban Arts helps students chart a course toward the future by inspiring them to create and introducing them to adults who are invested in them and treat them as equals. This wonderful model has attracted national attention, including this most recent honor, the 2009 Coming Up Taller Award. This award recognizes afterschool and out-of-school arts and humanities programs for youth in traditionally underserved communities. It honors programs that foster the creative and intellectual development of our Nation's children. The ideals set out by the Coming Up Taller Award are certainly met by New Urban Arts, and I know that they will build on this honor by helping more students. I would like congratulate all of the students and mentors who make New Urban Arts such a dynamic and innovative program, as well as its executive director, Jason Yoon, and the chairwoman of the New Urban Arts Board of Directors, Myrth York. Their hard work and dedication to the youth of Providence and to the arts will ensure that New Urban Arts continues to help our young people realize their potential into the future, and to serve as model for the rest of the Nation.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, October 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first hour and the majority controlling the second hour; further, that any time during morning business, adjournment or recess of the Senate count postcloture.