Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, while the cold war may be over, U.S. security interests endure. Unfortunately, many Americans do not fully appreciate this new dynamic. Indeed it is difficult to understand how emerging threats, may challenge future U.S. global interests. Some examples are very clear: China's rise to power is increasingly marked by military posturing and coercive diplomacy in the Pacific rim. An unstable and fragmented Russia turns to aggressive nationalism to hold itself together. Economic ruin, ethnic violence, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose serious threats to international stability. We have asked our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to protect our country and its vital national security interests, in this evolving international environment. Our military is our first, and often our last line of defense and we must be prepared to provide it with the technological edge to defeat any enemy on any battlefield. I must remind my colleagues that the battlefield of the future has little resemblance to the battlefield of the past. Information warfare, wide availability of commercial off-the-shelf technology, and the proliferation of highly capable weapons systems, all contribute to a rapid evolution, in military tactics and doctrine. Understanding how these new conflicts and demands are burdening our services is difficult to do from an arms length distance here in Washington. So last Friday I went down to my district and spent time at Camp Lejeune. It was an opportunity to see how the tremendous efforts our men and women in the Marine Corps can and will be increased with the support of adequate defense dollars. Just last week, the House made a step in the right direction by passing H.R. 3230, the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. The bill stems the tide of the administration cuts that would have weakened our national security, and placed our men and women in uniform at increased risk. I would like to commend Chairman Spence for carefully crafting a bipartisan bill that achieves four fundamental goals: First, we promised to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. A number of critically important provisions in this bill such as the 3 percent pay raise, the increase in military housing allowance by 50 percent over the President's budget, the funding of troop barracks and child care centers, goes a long way to maintain a decent quality of life, for our all-volunteer military. Second, we promised to sustain short and long-term readiness. Despite funds added by Congress last year to maintain minimum readiness levels, and the high pace of ongoing military operations around the world, the President suggested reductions in a variety of readiness accounts, below current spending levels. Despite the administration's proposed cuts, H.R. 3230 has recommended an increase of $1.6 billion in key readiness accounts to ensure U.S. military preparedness. Third, the National Security Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 addresses the growing modernization shortfalls that have resulted from a decade-long, 80 percent decline in real dollars in procurement spending. The President's fiscal year 1997 procurement budget is the lowest in 50 years, and is a frightening $5 billion lower than the Pentagon planned just one year ago. This bill therefore devotes the bulk of the spending increases recommended in H.R. 3230 to procurement. This will shore-up a dramatically downsized industrial base, by adding funds to a number of under- and unfunded programs. And fourth, we have continued our efforts to create a more agile and competitive defense management structure, by continuing to reorganize and reduce our defense bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, this bill is consistent with the Contract With America. It is consistent with our goals of achieving a balanced budget by 2002; and we can do it the right way--not on the backs of the men and women who serve in our military.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill. This bill is a bipartisan bill that has been skillfully put together by Chairman Floyd Spence of my neighboring State of South Carolina. As a Representative of the Third District of North Carolina, I represent such well-known facilities as the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Camp Lejeune, and Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base. Improving quality of life is extremely important to me. I am, therefore, pleased that this bill provides for a 3-percent pay raise, increases housing allowances 50 percent over the President's request, and authorizes $900 million above the President's request for military construction. This bill also appropriately addresses our military modernization. As my colleagues know, we must continue to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the technological edge to dominate on the new world battlefield. I urge my colleagues to support the men and women who bravely serve our country in uniform by voting in favor of H.R. 3230.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, $10 million is not a big deal to most liberal Democrats. But to Bill Clinton it's just enough to pay for a seat on the Federal appeals court. That's right, Mr. Speaker. Ten million dollars. Just think what you could buy with that much money. A trip around the world. A big, fancy yacht. Or, a seat on one of the highest courts in the land. As a life-time Federal judge, you could have power over the lives of millions of Americans. You could make decisions that shape society and the economy. And you would not even need judicial experience. All you would need is a little fund-raising experience working for the Democrat Party. It's really a no-brainer if you think about it, Mr. Speaker. I mean, what would you rather do with $10 million. Invest in cattle futures, or sit on the Federal bench for the rest of your life. Not a bad deal, I'd say.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2660) to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, as amended.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery]. (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. JONES asked and was given permissions to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 2660, a bill to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. This bill was introduced by Congressman Jim McCrery on November 17, 1995. It will increase the amount that is authorized to be appropriated, for the acquisition of land, in the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge in Talulah, LA. The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge was established on June 28, 1980, by Public Law 96-285 to preserve the largest remaining privately owned bottom land and hardwood tract in the Lower Mississippi River Delta. The act has authorized $20 million for land acquisition, through the Department of the Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund. The diverse habitat at the Tensas River Refugee supports a tremendous variety of wildlife, including the largest white-tailed deer herd in Louisiana, bald eagles, numerous species of small mammals and birds, and the Louisiana black bear. The Tensas River population is one of only two known populations of this subspecies in existence. The wetlands, lakes, and bayous in the refuge provide habitat for an equally diverse variety of aquatic life including fish, reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, and the American alligator. This aquatic habitat is particularly important because the Tensas River is the only major waterway in the Louisiana delta that has not been extensively altered by channelization. To date, Congress has appropriated $20 million for land acquisition at the refuge, but additional funds may be necessary to complete the acquisition process. H.R. 2660 authorizes an additional $20 million for land acquisition, subject of course to appropriations. The bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire the remaining critical lands necessary to complete the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. At present,the National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of 508 refuges, which are located in all 50 States and 5 U.S. territories. These units range in size from a single acre refuge in Minnesota, to the 19.3 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In the last decade, 81 refugees and approximately 3.6 million acres have been added to the System. The Tensas River Refuge is an important component in this nationwide system, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2660, the bill just passed.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, on April 25, 1996, the Charles Gray Morgan Veterans of Foreign Wars Post, in Greenville, NC, will celebrate their 50th anniversary by recognizing their charter members. They, like all of our veterans, have made great sacrifices to protect the American way of life. Mr. Speaker, what stands out in my mind, is that this generation of veterans, gave so much for their country and asked for so little in return. They answered their country's call to arms, fought bravely on foreign battlefields, and returned home to work hard, and build strong families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize one of these selfless individuals in particular, Neal Whitener Hahn, Jr., of Greenville, NC. Mr. Hahn was born in Kinston, NC, on September 7, 1919. Raised with his two brothers and one sister, Mr. Hahn lived most of his younger life in Wilmington, NC. He is married to his wife of 50 years, Helen, and together they have raised four children. In 1938, as WW II loomed in the horizon, Mr. Hahn joined the North Carolina National Guard, Company A, 105th Medical Battalion. He was trained as a medic. On September 16, 1940, he was inducted into the U.S. Army and stationed at Fort Jackson, SC. He spent the next 4 years training new troops. On February 12, 1944, Mr. Hahn was ordered overseas. Ten days later he landed in Scotland, where he trained for several months. On June 10, 1944, his unit landed at Omaha and Red Beach as part of the Allied invasion of France. Mr. Hahn spent the next 337 days on the front lines, as a combat medic. He received five battle stars during that time. On January 10, 1945, he was wounded in Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge, and was awarded the Purple Heart. Then, on April 12, 1945, Mr. Hahn was awarded the Silver Star for Valor, the military's second highest award for bravery. The following is an excerpt of the official citation: Neil W. Hahn, Jr., Medical Department, United States Army, for gallantry in action on 21 December, 1944, in Belgium. When they learned that men were lying seriously wounded in an open field, across a river, Private Hahn waded through icy currents of the river, and crawled for one hundred yards through intense enemy fire to the casualties. Finding that the wounded men were unable to move, Private Hahn and his comrade gave first aid and made three trips to evacuate them through the enemy fire and across the river. Their great heroism and unselfish devotion to duty, saved the wounded men, from death through wounds or exposure. Mr. Speaker, what is even more remarkable, is that Mr. Hahn never actually received some of his military decorations and awards. For 50 years, this humble man kept quiet, never asking our Government for his medals. To Mr. Hahn, the medals were not important. What is important is that he served his country with courage and honor. Now, in conjunction with their 50th anniversary, the VFW Post in Greenville will conduct a special ceremony to finally present to Mr. Hahn all of the medals he has earned and so clearly deserves. Mr. Speaker, Neal Hahn is certainly not alone, in deserving our recognition. I stand here today and salute all of our veterans, for their dedication to duty, for risking their lives to protect our families, and for their continued commitment to our way of life. Mr. Hahn, you, and men and women like yourself are the real heroes in our Nation. To Neal Hahn and veterans everywhere, I say, thank you for your dedication to our Nation.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed and appalled when President Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill. The President's veto is in direct opposition to the will of the House and the Senate. Even more important, the President's veto is in direct opposition to the will of the majority of the American people. No one really is sure how many partial birth abortions are performed or how many abortionists are using the method. However, we do know that the overwhelming majority are performed on perfectly normal and healthy babies. Clearly this is an issue that crosses party lines. The bill passed the House with 214 Republicans and 72 Democrats voting for the legislation, and in the Senate with 45 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Yet the President has the gall to go against the American people. In recent polls, national polls of registered voters conducted in December by the Tarrance Group, 71 percent favored the bill that we passed. In another poll, 65 percent of pro-choice Americans supported the ban, the partial birth abortion ban. Specifically, 78 percent of women voters support the ban that the House and the Senate passed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for the Record a statement by Ralph Reed regarding the veto of the partial birth abortion ban, and I quote: Bill Clinton has taken his veto pen and pointed it like a dagger at the hearts of the innocent unborn. His veto is a brazen betrayal of his solemn promise to make abortion rare. It is an insult to millions of people of faith who consider abortion to be the taking of innocent human life. It will be very hard, if not impossible, for Bill Clinton to look Roman Catholic and Evangelical voters in the eye and ask for their support in November. I further quote Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition. I am proud to add my voice to those Roman Catholic bishops who are so courageous, and implore President Clinton to sign this legislation. The partial birth abortion is when a child's brains are removed and the baby is systematically executed as it comes down the birth canal. By allowing this procedure to continue unchecked, President Clinton has disappointed and deeply offended one of the largest voting blocks in the electorate. Bill Clinton has done more today than jeopardize the lives of unborn children. He has jeopardized his own reelection chances. Mr. Speaker, just one more letter I would like to make reference to before closing, because to the American people, this is an important issue to try to protect the life of the healthy unborn. This is from the Catholic Bishops and also from the Catholic Cardinals, and I happen to be Catholic. ``Your veto of this bill is beyond comprehension for those who hold human life sacred.'' I further quote and read from the letter from the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals: ``Mr. President, you and you alone had the choice of whether or not to allow children almost completely born to be killed brutally in partial birth abortions. Members of both Houses of Congress made their choices. They said no to partial birth abortions. American women voters have made their choices. According to a February 1996 poll by Fairbanks Mullin & Associates, 78 percent of women voters said no to partial birth abortions.'' Further stated in the letter from the Bishops and the Cardinals, ``We will also urge Catholics and other people of good will, including the 65 percent of self-described pro-choice voters who oppose partial birth abortions, to do all they can to urge the Congress to override this shameful veto.'' Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me this time. I think this is one of the most important issues that this Congress has had the privilege to debate. Again, I think it is appalling and discouraging and disappointing that the President of the United States vetoed the bill that was passed by the House and Senate to protect the healthy unborn.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon along with my colleague from the State of Georgia, Mr. Norwood, to talk about our military health care system, specifically to discuss TriCare and its implementation. I believe there are a number of important issues this body needs to address. The long-established ways of providing medical care for soldiers, military retirees, and family members are changing. As the bond with Korea's soldiers for lifetime medical care is being redefined, the historic promise of free lifetime medical care is coming face to face with the fiscal realities of the post-cold war. The most significant change in military health care is the introduction of TriCare, the Defense Department's regional managed care program. It is my understanding that TriCare is intended to provide high-quality, low-cost, successful care to dependent and retiree beneficiaries by partnering with civilian sector health care providers. The change has begun in selected areas of the United States and is scheduled to be fully operational in the continental United States and Hawaii by 1997. As we closely watch TriCare evolve, it seems that several outcomes appear apparent. Throughout the transition, Congress will examine TriCare closely, and alternatives to TriCare will be considered if problems of access and cost escalate and TriCare is unable to provide a uniform benefit. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. JONES. Charlie Norwood, I want to thank you for joining me today. I look forward to joining you on this issue. We are going to right a wrong before it is over. I promise you that.

Mr. JONES. Let me tell you. Mr. Norwood, I know we are closing down in another 5 or 6 minutes and will be ready to yield back the balance of our time, but I could not agree more. We have gotten to a point in this country where too many times those people, and you are right about the dentists in eastern North Carolina. Most of the dentists in North Carolina, but particularly eastern North Carolina, these are hard working, family people. they are not muntimillionaires, they are not millionaires; they are just people working hard to provide a very valuable service, trying to take care of the people in their community. Yet, as you said, too many times the Federal Government, whether it bve DOD or another agency that you were just talking about, comes down with a heavy hand or club, as you said, and as long as there are people like you and I and many on both sides of the aisle up here in Congress, we are going to fight for that man, that woman, in our district that we feel has not been treated fairly. If I can before closing, I would like to read, because this is a letter sent to me by an Air Force captain on April 1, 1996. I am just going to read a couple of sentences to you. It says, ``Dear Mr. Jones: As a member of the USAF stationed at Seymour Johnson in your Congressional District, I am writing to you about the new military dental plan. I attempted to follow my chain of command and in doing so determined this is a Congressional issue.'' ``According to Champus,'' and this is a quote, `` `there would be no change in coverage' under the new plan.'' I am just skipping around in this letter. ``My payments have almost doubled. Personally, I would rather pay the extra $308 per month'' for the service that I had prior to this new company. ``I am certain that I am not the only military member. With this problem with Concordia's limits being so low, I can hardly blame dentists for not accepting the new plan.'' Let me repeat that again. ``I am certain I am not the only military member with this problem. With Concordia's limits being so low, I can hardly blame dentists for not accepting the new plan.'' ``In all honesty, it gets old having your health packages changed, being told that `coverage is the same', and discovering that twice as much money is coming out of your pockets.'' I want to get that in for the Record, Mr. Norwood, because again, with all of this 30 or 40 minutes we have had, what we are talking about is American citizens, taxpayers and military. I am going to continue to work with you and your staff to see if we cannot correct this problem. I think it is a problem that has gone too far, to the detriment of taxpayers in my district and some of your friends elsewhere. I am going to work with you and your staff as you work with me and my staff to see if we cannot correct this situation.

Mr. JONES. I like those four or five points the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] made because as you said in your comments a few minutes ago, there is no oversight. Once the bid process is finished and a company gets the contract, then this has become very helter- skelter. We have dentists that have not been treated fairly in my opinion, we have patients who have not been treated fairly in my opinion, and I am delighted to hear these four or five points, because if there is anything I want those that might be watching to fully understand in fact that this new majority, we understand making Government more efficient. Here we have got a dental system that in my opinion is not efficient and is not serving the people it was intended to serve. When you think about our military, these are men and women that were willing to sacrifice their life, and they should not be denied dental care. Yet we have our dentists as we have said, I am being a little repetitious but I want to repeat it again, they are taxpayers, American citizens, and here we have got the Government through this Concordia group working against the taxpayer who is paying for this $1.7 billion plan. So I am delighted to join you, and I am sure you will have many others as you go forward with these four or five points that you think would help with oversight as it relates to dental care for our military.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth restating. Would the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] tell me again how many dentists were in the network when Delta had the plan versus Concordia today?

Mr. JONES. These are taxpayers. Yet they have a company that comes down and threatens their livelihood and says, ``If you don't join our group, we're going to take your money, because you're a taxpayer, we're going to spend your money and put you out of business.''

Mr. JONES. It is our responsibility to oversee the spending of the taxpayer dollar, you and I and other Members of the House. It is our responsibility to be sure whether it is DOD or another agency that they are getting their money's worth. Certainly the taxpayer needs to get his or her money's worth and certainly our military needs to be treated fairly with the best plan possible for the money. What I have gathered from the last 20 or 25 minutes that we have been talking from your comments as well as mine, that we feel that they are not getting their dollar's worth and you just said about the dentists, and this probably appalled me as much as anything. When I had dentists and, I want people to remember, these are taxpayers of America.

Mr. JONES. That is why I sincerely appreciate your joining me in this effort to find out what we can do to help correct a very bad situation. I am like you. I do not know why we do not have oversight over situations like this, because we are talking about the taxpayers' money. We are talking about providing good health plans for our military and our retirees, and we all know that we are talking about the taxpayers' money, and you said again, I keep using this, $1.7 billion contract. Let me share this also with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] and also those that might be watching. This is a quote from, again, a news article. I want you to know that I give credit to the news article, because these are not my words but the words of someone else. This has to do with a statement by a gentleman named Jeff Album, spokesman for Delta Dental. I would like to share this with you. ``But Onslow County is not alone. There are other counties across the country around military bases without dentists signed up with UCCI,'' which again is United Concordia, said Jeff Album, spokesman for Delta Dental. Then I go further with his quote. ``We believe the criteria specified for selection of a winner in the request for proposal did not match the criteria that seems to have been used in the selection of UCCI,'' Album said. And I further quote: ``It appears DOD opted for the least expensive bid rather than best value.'' Let me read that again, and I want you to comment, if you will. ``We believe the criteria specified for selection of a winner in the request for proposal did not match the criteria that seems to have been used in the selection of UCCI,'' Album said. ``It appears DOD opted for the least expensive bid rather than best value.'' Since you have looked into this matter in detail, can you comment on that? Do you think that the bid process was equal to what Delta had been asked to bid on before?

Mr. JONES. Along these lines, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a newspaper article, just a couple of quotes from this article, one being from a dentist in New Bern, NC, which is Craven County, adjacent to Onslow County. It says: Dr. Jim Congleton has not signed with United Concordia. He said that he wished the company had been more honest and open in developing the dental plan which they are offering to military dependents. In addition to that, let me share a comment by a dependent. ``Military dependents are not happy with this situation. Our costs are going to go way up,'' said Jeannette Coulsey, a military spouse. ``UCCI says if no dentist in the area signs up, or we see a dentist who is not in the plan, United Concordia will pay the dentist 10 to 12 percent less than one of their participating dentists.'' So your point about our concern should be for the dentists, and also it certainly should be for those in the military and their families, and again, this is why I really appreciate you joining me this afternoon, because this is a very serious problem in my opinion, and one that, thank goodness for people like you, and I want to say my staff, the fact that we are willing to look into a firm that could receive $1.7 billion, and that is with a B, billion dollars, $1.7 billion, and yet we have so many unhappy, dissatisfied people.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of areas the gentleman has mentioned, but I want to share with him a letter that we received several months ago from a dentist, and I will not give his name. It says: My opinion is that the schedule of allowances known as fees paid by United Concordia is too low to be profitable. My income is solely derived from my fees. I get no subsidy from the government. These United Concordia fees are 20 to 33 percent less than the fees paid by the old administrator, Delta. A reduction of fees of this magnitude reduces my profit by 60 to 82 percent. I cannot afford to see these patients at such a loss. In addition to the fact that dentists should not be expected to stay in business if they cannot make a profit, no one can in America, the problem that I have is that, again, not only are our dentists, in my opinion, being treated unfairly, but the fact that we do not have the network to service those at the base and their families and the retirees. We have a real serious problem, Charlie, and I am delighted that you are so involved in this issue. We have a serious problem, and that is giving adequate care to our men and women in the military.

Mr. JONES. When the gentleman has approached the Department of Defense, I know the gentleman mentioned in his earlier statement that we did have a hearing in one of our military committees and this subject did come up, but knowing that you have done an extensive amount of work, you and your staff along with my staff, will you tell me what your response has been from the Department of Defense when you say. ``What in the heck is going on?''

Mr. JONES. Let me ask the gentleman, before he became a Member, since he was a dentist, is it not true that the dentists, and you explained this 30 cents out of a dollar, I believe you said, they work on a very tight margin, so many times these dentists, even though they might have been in business for 10 or 12 years, they still owe for equipment, they still owe moneys on the facility itself. So the concern that I had when I first heard about this was the fact that Concordia, if you will let me use this word, seemed to come in there in a very roughshod way to say, ``You either buy into our plan, or we are going to hurt your business by putting our own people in.'' If you do not mind touching on that, I think you might have just a moment ago, but do you not see a problem with a company that has been OK'd, so to speak, or approved by the Department of Defense going into a community that has welcomed and loved the Marine base, it has been there for years and years, and then they come in and say, ``If you do not accept our fee structure, which is quite a reduction from what you had previously, if you do not follow our orders, then we are going to go in direct competition with you.'' Is that any way to build rapport in a town where you have a military facility as important as Camp LeJeune? And not only the providers or the patients, none are happy with a situation like that, but my understanding is they threatened to come into town, build a new clinic and import people from outside, in effect closing down 40 families, 40 offices in town who had been there doing the right things all these years. It is also my understanding, and it is a pretty clear understanding, that there is a real effort by Concordia to characterize the local dentists as selfish and uncooperative and unwilling to accept a discounted fee. But they have been doing that for the past 8 years with Delta Dental. The difference is that Delta Dental was paying them enough to make a living and they could still offer a good quality of care. The problem here, Walter, as I see it is that the Department of Defense, in fact CHAMPUS, selected this company, Concordia, Inc. This company has come under serious fire from patients and providers since it replaced Delta Dental earlier this year. We think, and we are looking into this, as you are, too, but we think there are certain deficiencies going on in the Concordia contract which I alluded to when I opened. The Congressional Budget Office alluded to it, too, that we basically do not have oversight of a situation like this. Concordia has not been able to establish an adequate provider network, meaning they do not have enough dentists working for them. Therefore, the patients, the military dependents and retirees, do not have as many choices. They do not have access to patients, which is one of the very first things the Department of Defense said they wanted to make sure that we had. Concordia has inadequate claims services, creating, really--that causes a serious financial crisis, not only for your patients, but also for the providers. They have been accused of making changes in the procedure codes during claim processing. Another way of saying that is that they go in, and if a provider puts a particular code down for a particular procedure that is supposed to pay x dollars, Concordia does not mind changing that code so it will pay fewer dollars. In other words, that is another way for them to make up for the fact that perhaps they underbid this contract. There have been unresponsive and most certainly uninformed service representatives causing delays in treatment and delays in claims processing. It has gotten to the point where there are just hostile relations down there between this managed care company--and again, that is not people who do any type of treatment, they are managed care, they are health care entrepreneurs--and the providers.

Mr. JONES. Well, I really appreciate having this opportunity, knowing of your background and your interest in providing for adequate medical, both health and dental, plans for our military and retirees. You and I share this same commitment to our retirees and to those serving on active duty and to their families to make sure that they get the very best medical care, both physical and dental. I will have to say, back in, I guess, January of this past year, I happened to be down in Jacksonville, which is the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, and we are very proud to have Camp Lejeune in eastern North Carolina, particularly in my district. Well, a group of dentists wanted to talk to me, and I will be very honest with you, I was very unfamiliar with the dental plan because it was something new. I think the Concordia is now the provider of this dental plan, and in the past, and I hope you are in touch with this in just a couple of minutes, Delta had been the provider. Well, according to these dentists that I met with, they had a tremendous concern about the fact that they were going to have to provide this dental care with a less fee, and they had it well broken down and documented as to the amount of money that it cost them to provide adequate medical care to the military family and the retirees, and the fact that Concordia was asking them to take a very, very significant decrease, and they were showing me with documentation how they could not afford to provide this dental care for the military at Camp Lejeune. Well, when I came back to Washington, I met with my military person, and we started looking into this matter, and in addition to what I heard when I was in Jacksonville, also these dentists were telling me, and, Charlie, they have been doing work with the military for years and years, and they were telling me that they were being threatened that if you do not buy into our contract, we will put our own dentists down here in Jacksonville to provide the dental service. So this is what really made me very upset because again my concern is for the dentists, but also my concern is for the military and the retirees, and what I was trying to do, and the reason you and I developed this relationship on this issue, is because you and I both share the concern with what the Department of Defense is doing. And I would appreciate if you would share with me and those that might be watching us this afternoon a little background on how DOD decided to go with Concordia, and my concern is that DOD is not, does not, have the proper oversight on the actions of Concordia as they are, in my opinion, intimidating many of the dentists in my district.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, we live in a world where crime rates are rising daily, and where acts of violence against innocent people are escalating, at an alarming rate. It is rare when we hear of citizens who go above and beyond the call of duty to help their fellow man. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to give special recognition to one of those individuals, Lt. Joseph P. Tade, of the Elizabeth City, NC Police Department. Lieutenant Tade embodies the qualities of honor, tenacity, and dedication. He has recently received three national awards for acts of courage and valor in the line of duty. The American Police Hall of Fame, has awarded Lieutenant Tade two separate Silver Stars for Bravery and the Legion of Honor Medal. The Incidents, for which Lieutenant Tade earned his medals say much about his bravery and character. On October 12, 1980, then-Patrolman Tade and his partner, intervened when an armed man attempted to flee the scene of a robbery, at a local grocery store. The suspect, opened fire on an innocent bystander and on the officers. After unsuccessfully attempting to convince the gunman to surrender, the officers pursued the suspect as he fled in his car. The chase ended when the officers cut off the suspect's can and the suspect took his own life. Lieutenant Tade earned his second Silver Star when a routine traffic stop pin 1984 turned into a high speed chase that reached 95 miles per hour. When the chase appeared to have stopped, one of the three suspects aimed his gun at Tade and his partner, and then opened fire. Fearing for he and his partner's lives, Tade returned fire, striking the gunman twice. The suspects were apprehended a short time later and the gunman survived his wounds. Lieutenant Tade's actions, in April of 1995, earned him The Legion of Honor Medal. While attempting to separate a local male and female involved in a violent altercation, Tade was severely cut by the female who had suddenly produced a razor blade. Although bleeding profusely-- from a two inch long wound--he was still able to disarm the youth and take her into custody. Despite the many stitches required, Lieutenant Tade recovered and suffered no permanent damage. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Tade is by no means alone in deserving our recognition. Every day and night, in this country and abroad, hundreds of thousands of Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, risk their lives to maintain peace, uphold justice, rid our neighborhoods of violent criminals, and keep our children and families safe. Words alone seem inadequate, but I would like to express to Lieutenant Tade, and his fellow officers throughout American, a sincere ``Thank you'', for your dedication to your fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the entire summary of Lieutenant Tade's courage, be included in the Record. Mr. Speaker, in a world where crime rates are rising daily, where acts of violence against innocent people are escalating at an alarming rate, it is rare when we hear of citizens who go above and beyond the call of duty to help their fellow man. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to give special recognition to one of those individuals, Lt. Joseph P. Tade, of the Elizabeth City Police Department in Elizabeth City, NC. Lieutenant Tade embodies the qualities of honor, tenacity, and dedication. He has recently received three national awards for acts of bravery and heroism in the line of duty. The American Police Hall of Fame has awarded Lieutenant Tade two separate Silver Stars for bravery and the Legion of Honor Medal. The incidents for which Lieutenant Tade earned his medals say much about his bravery and character. On October 12, 1980, then-Patrolman Tade and his partner intervened when an armed man attempted to flee the scene of a robbery of a local grocery store. The suspect fired multiple shots at a bystander and the officers. Fearing for the lives of everyone in the area, the officers returned fire, including two warning shots in the air and shots by Tade aimed at the suspect's tires. After attempting to convince the gunman to surrender, the officers pursued the suspect as he fled in his car. The chase ended when the officers cut off the suspect's car and the suspect took his own life. Lieutenant Tade earned his second Silver Star when a routine traffic stop in 1984 turned into a high speed chase that reached speeds of 95 miles per hour. At night and on patrol with a police cadet, Tade once again demonstrated bravery and courage in the face of danger. When the truck they were chasing appeared to have stopped, and the officers had exited their vehicle, one of the three suspects fired multiple shots at Tade and his partner from the truck. Once again, fearing for he and his partner's lives, Tade returned fire, striking the gunman twice. The driver of the vehicle suddenly pulled away and another chase ensued. After evading several road blocks, the suspects were apprehended and the gunman survived his wounds. Lieutenant Tade's actions in April 1995 earned him The Legion of Honor Medal. While he and his partner, Capt. W.O. Leary, were attempting to separate a local male and female involved in a violent altercation, Tade was severely cut by the female who had suddenly produced a razor blade. Bleeding profusely from a 2-inch cut on the hand, he was still able to disarm the youth and take her into custody. Lieutenant Tade required 10 stitches and luckily suffered no permanent damage. These are certainly not Tade's only awards. In 1980, he was named Outstanding Young Law Enforcement Officer of the Year by the Elizabeth City Jaycees. Throughout his career, Tade has received commendations from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations, the North Carolina Division of Alcohol Law Enforcement, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Currituck County Sheriff's Office, the Edenton Police Department, in addition to countless interdepartmental commendations. Lieutenant Tade, a 20-year veteran, has a long and distinguished career with the Elizabeth City Police Department. He joined the department in 1976 and served as a cadet until 1978, when he was sworn- in full time. He immediately became involved in criminal investigations, as the department had no full-time investigators. In 1987, Tade was promoted to the rank of sergeant and became one of the department's first two full-time investigators. In 1989, Tade was promoted to the rank of lieutenant. In 1992, Tade was appointed as commander of the newly formed northeast regional drug task force. In 1995, Tade was appointed supervisor of a new division within the department. The neighborhood interdiction team, where he continues to serve today. This team is a community policing and street drug enforcement group working mainly in high crime areas of the city. Over the course of his highly successful career, Lieutenant Tade has been involved in over 2,500 local, State and Federal drug arrests alone, reaching to such places as New York City, NY, and Allentown, PA. These arrests have resulted in record seizures of illicit drugs and currency, well in excess of $1.5 million. In addition, Tade has completed over 1300 hours of advanced law enforcement training. Lieutenant Tade, a resident of Elizabeth City since the age of 10, currently lives with his wife Janet and their 3 daughters, Summer, Jessica, and Jordan. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Tade is by no means alone in deserving our recognition. Every day and night, in this country and abroad, hundreds of thousands of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers risk their lives to maintain peace, uphold justice, rid our streets, our neighborhoods and our businesses of violent criminals, and keep our children and families safe. To Lieutenant Tade and his fellow officers, I say ``thank you.''