[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2736-H2740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carney). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, this looks like Georgia night in the great 
Chamber of the House of Representatives. My colleague, Representative 
Price, just talked about one of the most important debates that we have 
had in this body in a long time and will have in regard to the 
situation in Iraq and the Commander in Chief and the constitutional 
right for the Commander in Chief to make the decisions along with the 
combatant commanders.
  These issues are hugely important. Things like the energy crisis that 
we faced 25 years ago, and we are facing again today, are hugely 
important issues. In fact, former Vice President Gore will be before 
the Science and Energy and Commerce Committees on Thursday talking 
about global warming and what we think we ought to do in regard to not 
only solving the energy crisis, but to keep from polluting the 
atmosphere. Hugely important issue.
  Trying to solve the crisis that is looming in regard to the 
entitlement spending which is, that along with the interest on the 
debt, is probably approaching 65 percent of what we spend each year in 
a $2.7 trillion budget, hugely important issue.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, every now and then along comes something that 
maybe does not get at first notice very much. There is not a lot of 
press. It is not one of the marquee issues of the day, but what I am 
speaking to my colleagues about tonight is also hugely important, and 
it, thank goodness, is beginning to get the attention that it deserves.
  That is an issue that I, as a physician and OB/GYN specialist in 
particular, physician Member of this body, feel very, very strongly 
about. What I am referring to is the recent decision by one of the 
Governors of our 50 States to mandate that young girls in the public 
school system of that particular State would be required to receive a 
new vaccine, which I will describe in detail in just a minute.
  They would be required before they could enter the sixth grade, the 
sixth grade, we all know sixth, seventh and eighth, and in some cases, 
considered the middle school years. So coming out of elementary or what 
I used to call grammar school, where there are many of these young 
girls, including my precious granddaughters, are still thinking about 
watching Little House on the Prairie as an example or playing with 
their dolls, would be required, just like they would be required to 
have their shots up to date in regard to measles and mumps and rubella 
and chickenpox, these highly contagious, infectious diseases that can 
be acquired just on casual contact; if you sneeze in the vicinity of a 
classmate, the disease is spread. This new vaccine, though, is not 
against one of these highly contagious communicable diseases, no, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This vaccine, called Gardisil, is a vaccine against cervical cancer-
causing viruses, referred to as human papilloma virus, or HPV. There 
are probably 100 strains of that virus in existence that have been 
identified, but four of them, virus number 6, number 11 and 
particularly number 16 and number 18, have been associated with the 
dreaded disease of cervical cancer about 70 percent of the time. About 
70 percent of the cases that occur, the 9,000 new cases that occur in 
this country every year, are associated with that HPV virus. So there 
is certainly a suggestion, a strong suggestion, of cause and effect.
  One of our great pharmaceutical companies in this country developed a 
vaccine that was approved a year ago, June of 2006, to prevent the 
contraction of this HPV virus, and it is a great vaccine. The studies, 
the phase III trials, while there, Mr. Speaker, may be some minor side 
effects, the safety seems to be there. The recommendation, of course, 
is that sexually active young women between the ages of, well, actually 
9 and 16, I would hasten to add that there are not too many 9-year-olds 
that are sexually active, but the vaccine is approved for those in that 
age group.
  It is thought that a series of three vaccines, given a month or two 
apart, at the cost of $360 just for the vaccine, probably up to $500 
once you add the cost of going to a physician, going to a gynecologist 
and having these vaccines administered, the cost of an office visit, 
the administration of the vaccine, probably a $500 charge, but a good 
investment in this humble Member, physician Member, former 
gynecologist, in his opinion, probably a good choice for a young woman 
even at the age of 14 or 15, if she is sexually active or going to be 
sexually active, or maybe even a little bit younger if her parents are 
concerned about that possibility.
  Then I think the vaccination that has been developed by this 
pharmaceutical company and the vaccine referred to earlier, Gardisil, I 
would highly recommend, and if I was still practicing medicine, Mr. 
Speaker, and a mom brought her daughter in and asked me about that and 
said that she heard about it and wondered if I would recommend it, I 
would absolutely recommend it.
  But what was done in the last month or so, and this Member just 
happened to notice, and that is why I say this maybe seems like a small 
thing, but what it does is the mandate was issued that every single 
girl in that State at age 11, before going from elementary school, 
grammar school, to middle school, would have to have that vaccine, or 
she would not be able to continue in that public school system.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just flat wrong, and my bill that I introduced 
the very next day in this body, H.R. 1153, the title of that bill is 
the Parental Right to Decide Protection Act, because this is all about 
the rights of a parent to decide what is best for their child. There is 
no State interest in this because, as I point out, you do not contract 
human papilloma virus by casual contact. No, it is by sexual activity, 
and to force every single 11-year-old child in this country to get that 
vaccination or they cannot go to the public school system, even though 
they have paid their property taxes, they live in that school district, 
they have been in that school district, they have supported that school 
district, and their parents teach their children, maybe they believe 
firmly in abstinence-based sexual education, but they have that right 
to decide. The State does not have that right.

[[Page H2737]]

  That is why I say to my colleagues tonight that this is a hugely 
important issue. Cancer is a dreaded disease. We all probably would 
choose any other way to die than from a long, protracted case of any 
kind of cancer. Cervical cancer worldwide is probably the second 
leading cause of cancer death in women. That is not true in the United 
States. It may be the ninth or tenth or eleventh but it is too many. 
There are probably 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer in this country 
every year, and of those, approximately 3,700 die, and that is too 
many. We need to do everything that we can to prevent cervical cancer, 
and that is why I say the vaccine is a good thing.
  That is why I say that I, as a compassionate physician Member of this 
body, would recommend that vaccine to someone who has either told their 
parents that their daughter and her boyfriend are sexually active or 
they plan to be sexually active, and that could be 14 years of age. I 
know we all would hope that it would not be, but our daughter or 
granddaughter, but it could, and in those cases the recommendation to 
voluntarily take this opportunity to get that immunization on board 
really before they become sexually active, certainly before they become 
sexually active with multiple partners, is a good thing, but it is not 
a good thing to mandate it and to require it.

  We will talk about this throughout the hour, and I am very, very 
pleased to welcome one of my colleagues, a new Member, a very bright 
Member. He does not seem like a new Member because he is doing such a 
great job in these first 3 months of the 110th Congress. At this point 
I would like to yield to my good friend Mr. Jordan for his comments.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
and appreciate Dr. Gingrey's work on this legislation and other 
legislation. I think he is right on target with this Parental Right to 
Decide Protection Act.
  Like the doctor, I, too, understand the importance of vaccines, but I 
also understand, as the Representative was talking about, the 
importance of parents having control and the ability to direct their 
children in the upbringing of their children.
  My concern about this, what we are seeing being done in the States 
around the country is just what Mr. Gingrey talked about, this 
mandatory approach to this vaccine. In fact, we have legislation that 
has been introduced in my home State, Ohio, which would, if, in fact, 
it would pass, would require parents to opt out of the program; not 
take an affirmative step and opt in, but instead opt out, and instead 
puts the onus on parents to go in the other direction.
  One of the things I believe in so strongly is that we policymakers 
should make decisions based on what is best for families. We should 
filter things through a fundamental question: Does it help families? If 
the answer to that question is yes, we should be for it.
  My concern with what we have been talking about here this evening in 
this mandatory approach is that it undermines the importance of 
families, undermines the role that parents have to play in the 
upbringing of their children.
  America is a great country. It is the greatest Nation in history for 
many reasons: the rights we have; the fact that we have the right to 
vote; the freedom of speech; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to go 
after our goals, our dreams; the rule of law; all those wonderful 
things in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution and our heritage and 
our history that make America special.
  But one thing that makes this country special is this idea that 
parents are willing to sacrifice and do things so that their children 
can have life a little better than they did. Those youngsters in turn 
will do the same thing for their kids. It has been that concept and 
that approach and that phenomenon that has truly made America prosper 
and grow over the years.
  Again, my concern is that this moves in the opposite direction and 
begins to undermine that.

                              {time}  2130

  You think about all the things that parents are willing to do to help 
their kids and make decisions in their best interests, and they should 
have that same prerogative here.
  I was reminded of legislation that we dealt with, Doctor, in my time 
in the Ohio General Assembly. We dealt with a bill that actually 
required, a good bill, I voted for it, before a minor, and, again, we 
are talking, as I think you indicated in your opening remarks, we are 
talking about 6th graders here, young ladies. We dealt with the 
legislation in my time in the Ohio General Assembly which required 
parental consent before a minor could get a tattoo or any type of body 
piercing.
  Yet here we have something this important, this serious, and it would 
require parents opting out, not opting in on the front end. I think 
it's important to keep those concepts in mind as we move forward.
  Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio, 
and this point about opt in-opt out, on most of the bills that have 
been introduced, probably, in maybe 23 or 24 States, not a Governor 
issued a mandate, but where bills were actually introduced. The opt-out 
provision actually requires one of two things, either a doctor's excuse 
or the parent to sign that they want their child to not take the 
vaccines, but they have to have it notarized.
  Just think about the burden that really puts on people to try to find 
a notary. I mean, it's just not that easy to do, and it's certainly not 
easy to get a doctor to write an opt-out provision.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman's comments there. You 
know, it's almost as if there is this underlying belief in the way many 
of these proposals are structured, that the State knows better than mom 
and dad. We all know that is not the case. Even though some parents 
sometimes may make poor decisions on behalf of their kids, on behalf of 
their children, in the vast majority of cases, parents make infinitely 
better decisions than the State, than the politicians, than the 
bureaucrats can ever dream of making.
  Then this whole approach seems to undermine that concept which has, 
again, been fundamental, I believe, to the greatness of our country.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for being 
with me tonight as long as he can stay. I appreciate his input, his 
comments. He is right on target.
  Statistics suggest, and this is actually from the center of the CDC 
in Atlanta, my home, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV 
each year. Over half, now listen to this, my colleagues, over half of 
all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their 
lives, over half of all sexually active men and women become infected 
at some time in their lives with the HPV virus.
  Now, if you do the math on that, and I think I am correct if my 
Georgia Tech math serves me well, that means that about 0.2 percent, 
0.2, not 2 percent, but 0.2 percent of women who are actually infected 
with HPV virus, 16 or 18, the virus that this vaccine would prevent, 
even if they contract the virus, only 0.2 percent.
  Well, I said at the outset of the discussion that accounts to, in 
this country about 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer each year and 
over 3,000 deaths. Even though it's a small, small number, it has 
significance, clearly. But you have to ask yourself if that would 
warrant vaccinating mandatorily every little 11-year-old girl in every 
public school system in all 50 States of this country.
  I don't have the number, how many little girls that would be; but I 
will tell you one thing, it's far more than this number. Then there are 
some other things that we can discuss in regard to risk and adverse 
reactions, even though the FDA, and I don't disagree with the decision, 
the trials that show this vaccine is safe, but yet it has only been on 
the market for less than a year. All of a sudden, the big experimental 
model is going to be my granddaughters and your daughters all across 
this country. I think that is absolute insanity.
  At this time, I want to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, my 
classmate, Representative Scott Garrett, for his comments.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I just come to the floor tonight to 
commend

[[Page H2738]]

you and to commend the work you have done on this area with your 
legislation, and also your efforts tonight to try to educate the 
Members of this House and also the American public as well. A couple of 
points come to mind, and you have touched on some of them, but they hit 
home for me, and that is the missed opportunities of resources, is one; 
the issue of parental rights is another; and the overall issue of the 
public being mindful of what they need to look out for when it comes to 
campaigns. I know you touched on each of those briefly.
  I had the opportunity to meet today with different groups, as you 
know we do, all day when we are not on the floor and in committee 
rooms. The issue of education and the issue of raising our kids came 
up, and we were talking about other issues other than this one. But the 
bottom-line issue always came to this, who cares more about your kids 
than you do? Who cares more about my children than I do?
  Other people may, the teachers in the school, the local school boards 
may care for them, the health officials or the county and the State in 
Trenton, my capital, may, the bureaucrats down here in Washington or 
someone else may have some concern, but no one is going to care as much 
as the parents. We know that loving interest that the parents have in 
their children is that they are going to be doing right by them. 
Secondly, the parents are going to know what is the best interest of 
that child more than anyone else.
  Parents are going to know the difference between that child, who, as 
you described before, may be 11 years old and in many circumstances no 
way, shape or form is going to be sexually active; and parents know 
other children, 15, 16 years old have been, are starting to be sexually 
active, in which case this treatment, the shot or what have you, would 
be appropriate.
  I think it's what the Founding Fathers intended for this country is 
to have control over our lives, at the local level most possible, and 
when it comes to children, the most local level is the home setting and 
the parents.
  So the point is that those decisions that are touching the intimate 
aspect of our lives and our children are best left to the parents 
themselves and not some bureaucrat outside.
  The second issue is resources. You were just touching upon one when I 
came in. You kindly yielded over to me. The issue is about the cost and 
how widespread this will be, how many kids, children, this could be 
used for across the entire country, if what is being done in Texas and 
elsewhere is going to be spread across the country.
  We live, as you know here, with limited resources, certainly limited 
medical resources. We want to make sure that those limited resources go 
to the most areas necessary. I always say, in our budget meetings, you 
can spend a dollar once, but that is it. You can't spend it a second or 
a third time. Once it's spent, it's spent.
  So when it comes to our health care dollars, we have to decide. I 
rely on health officials or health professionals such as you to help us 
to make those decisions where those limited dollars should go, and 
where there is not a need. When you are talking about 8, 9, 10, 11-
year-old girls who are not sexually active and most likely will not be 
sexually active until their maturity, there is no medical necessity for 
that.
  The third point I think is this: I think this whole discussion here 
should be an eye opener, a light bulb going off, something. As I say, 
an eye opener for parents and citizens across this country to see how 
things can move so quickly and touch upon your families without you 
even knowing about it.
  One day you are sitting at home and your wife and kids in the kitchen 
are just going about your normal routine, getting ready to go off to 
school, or what have you. The next day, all of a sudden, you are 
getting an edict from the Governor someplace or some other bureaucrat 
telling us your child is going to have to be inoculated for an ailment 
that they are never going to get.
  How does that happen? It happens in a way in this case as we saw with 
an instructive affirmative campaign in various places around this 
country, saying, you know, a push by certain factors, pushing out, 
saying this should be done.
  Then what happened after that? Well, the media jumps on board, as 
they often do, and sells us, says this is a great thing, how can you 
say no to this. All of a sudden it has become politically incorrect for 
you to stand up and say, wait a minute, I may have a question about 
this. Wait a minute, these are my little kids you are talking about. 
Wait a minute, my personal physician or pediatrician says there is no 
need for this. All of a sudden you are backed into a corner.
  This is a case where I think a light bulb should go off for all 
parents and citizens across the country just to see how quickly these 
things can come down. That is why I came to the floor tonight just to 
commend you for throwing the light of day on this very important topic 
and illuminating it for all of us and for the people watching this 
evening to realize this is happening now. There may be other things 
that they need to be paying attention to, again, with regard to the 
health care of their children.
  Mr. GINGREY. I really appreciate my friend from New Jersey. As we all 
know, every Member in this body knows, he is a strong, strong fiscal 
conservative. He pointed out the fact that we have very limited 
dollars. Every day, each one of us, Representative Jordan, his 
constituents come up here from Ohio, and Representative Garrett's 
constituents from New Jersey, mine from Georgia, and each one of them 
has a request. Many of them are health-care related.
  Today I was visited by a mom who has two autistic children. Maybe my 
colleagues had constituents advocating on behalf of more funding for 
autism, and it goes on and on and on. It is our job, with limited 
dollars, to try to decide how to apply them for the greater good.
  I really appreciate the gentleman's comments in regard to putting the 
money where it's going to be most effective and not to waste it, not to 
waste those precious dollars. As he pointed out, you can only spend 
that dollar once.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I just want to pick up on where Congressman 
Garrett had kind of emphasized what he had talked about. It is almost 
as if some people are saying parents aren't smart enough. Parents are 
smart enough to figure out where their kids need to go to school. They 
are smart enough to help and save and invest and help their kids get a 
college education.
  They are smart enough to forgo opportunities for themselves and make 
sacrifices so their kids can have a little better life than they did 
and further that American Dream and further the prosperity of this 
country. Yet somehow they are not smart enough in this area.
  I think it is important we never undermine that basic fact that 
parents know best. We had sent a letter to the Governor of our State. 
We have had legislation introduced in Ohio. I said in that letter, I 
said, in addition to this bill, this concept is being introduced in 
Ohio making inappropriate suppositions about the promiscuity of 6th 
grade girls. I share the view of many that this will lead to further 
erosion of the rights of parents to instruct the upbringing of their 
children.
  Again, that is why the sponsor of this bill has so appropriately 
named it, protecting parental rights. That is so important.
  Again, I just wanted to, before I have to leave, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
remarks this evening.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for being with us 
tonight. I mentioned at the outset about the statistics with regard to 
cervical cancer worldwide being the second leading cause of cancer 
death in women, but maybe 9th or 10th in this country, and the 
difference is attributed to the fact that in this country, since the 
mid-1940s with the discovery of the pap smear, the value of the pap 
smear to screen for cervical cancer was discovered. Annual checkups 
were recommended for sexually active, certainly for sexually active 
adult women, and, again, that could start at age 14 in many instances. 
In some instances, it may be when a young girl is going off to college, 
or maybe on occasion it is not till someone is 22 or 23 years old.
  But at that point in her life, the most important way to prevent 
cervical cancer or to be able to have early detection, when it can be 
cured, is by having that physical examination done on a timely basis.

[[Page H2739]]

                              {time}  2145

  For the most part, the recommendation is a yearly exam. And I think 
most women in this country get that examination on an annual or maybe 
every 2-year basis if they have gone several years with normal Pap 
smears. And it is very simple, almost painless, not something that they 
would rush to have done, but women know the importance of this for 
their protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns that unless we do a great job of 
educating the public in regard to this vaccine, that women might get 
the idea that, first of all, the vaccine protects them against sexually 
transmitted diseases. And it does protect them against HPV virus, that 
virus that causes genital warts in the 0.2 percent of cases that can 
actually lead to cervical cancer, but it offers no protection against 
things like herpes and syphilis and HIV/AIDS. And I could go on and on 
and on, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to do that and get overly 
descriptive. But it only protects against that one sexually transmitted 
disease that is associated with cervical cancer.
  I want to give my colleague from New Jersey an opportunity in the 
time left to weigh in a bit.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  You brought up another fact, which was good, and then you went on to 
the details of it more. But I think the point you raised was a good one 
and I would like to elaborate on for 30 seconds, and that is this: That 
young girls do go in this country to see their doctors, they do go to 
see their pediatricians. And the concern I had before, that I mentioned 
just about 5 minutes ago, that this current action is intervening and 
causing a wedge, is causing a wedge between the parent and the child.
  The point that you are alluding to here as well is now we are 
actually having another wedge. I said before, the closest relation out 
there should be between the parent and the child, father and mother and 
the daughter. Maybe the next close relationship is between the doctor, 
the pediatrician and the child. And that is what we are talking about 
here when you are talking about a 9-, 10-, or 11-year-old girl is a 
child. So not only are we driving a wedge between the parent and the 
child now, the State is now also driving this wedge between the doctor, 
the pediatrician and the child as well.
  The American College of Pediatrics and the Association of American 
Physicians and Surgeons are opposed in these circumstances to 
legislation which would require HPV vaccinations for school attendance, 
because they know that they are already having that correct and proper 
relationship. They are already seeing that little girl once a year 
usually for examination. They are making the examination, and I presume 
that they would be able to make that determination if that child is 
becoming sexually active and what have you. And so they would be, just 
as the parents are, in a better position than a bureaucrat in a State 
capital someplace or a bureaucrat here in Washington to determine what 
sort of treatment or what sort of inoculations are needed.
  So I just want to draw out that point you raised, that two wedges now 
of very close familial contact have been created by this new proposal 
to require this for young children. So I appreciate your bringing that 
point out.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  As I was pointing out in regard to this annual checkup, it is not 
just for the Pap smear and for screening for cervical cancer, but also 
for a complete wellness examination in women to detect very early 
breast cancer, a small lump that maybe the patient cannot detect or 
that is not picked up on a mammogram. But the opportunity is so 
invaluable to screen for not only cervical cancer, but for colon cancer 
and breast cancer.
  So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than 
that periodic checkup for adult women to have every 1 or 2 years to 
make sure that if they do come in contact with something like HPV or 
any other sexually transmitted disease, you are going to be able to 
treat that and treat it successfully.
  Cervical cancer is not something that a person is exposed to or the 
causative agent like human papilloma virus, it is not an exposure 1 
month and cervical cancer the next month or 6 months later or 1 year 
later, or maybe in many instances not even 5 years later. It goes 
through, thank goodness, a very slow progression, and there is great 
opportunity to treat at various stages and to treat successfully. But 
clearly, the earliest detection when there is just a slight abnormality 
is the best opportunity to treat.
  And, of course, with this introduction of this vaccine, which I 
highly recommend, but not on a mandatory basis and not be forced upon 
our 11-year-old, as I pointed out, daughters and granddaughters, not my 
granddaughters, this is wrong. It is the government interfering between 
the doctor, the parents, and the patient. And it seems to me that it is 
such common sense that when I introduced this bill; and I want to make 
sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, and I am soliciting cosponsors, and that list is growing every 
day.
  I want my colleagues to understand that what this bill does is simply 
state this: If you force your youngsters, your 11-year-olds in whatever 
State we might be talking about, maybe my own State of Georgia, 
hopefully they wouldn't do that, but if legislation is passed, and the 
Governor approves of it, then my bill says the Federal Government will 
not participate in the cost of those vaccines that are forced on our 
young children either through the Medicaid program or the SCHIP 
program, the childhood vaccination program, the Federal program.
  All these are wonderful programs, these safety net programs. I am a 
very strong advocate of that, of continuing things like SCHIP, to even 
strengthen it. And, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, my State of Georgia 
with their Peach Care program, that is what SCHIP is referred to in 
Georgia, they have done such a wonderful job of seeking out those 
children that don't have insurance and covering them, and I commend my 
colleagues in the Georgia General Assembly, I commend my Governor, 
Governor Sonny Perdue, for doing such a great job. But I think they 
would agree with me and they would agree with my friend from New Jersey 
and my friend from Ohio, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Jordan, that it is 
inappropriate expenditure of dollars to take a shotgun approach and 
force children who have a right to a public education, indeed they are 
paying for it through their property taxes in most States in this 
country, and then to say to them you can't enroll in the fifth or sixth 
grade in middle school because you haven't had this vaccine. It is 
totally inappropriate. And that is not just this Member's opinion, it 
is the opinion of all those cosponsors who have signed on to H.R. 1153.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got a few charts that I wanted to show. This 
first one, the American College of Pediatricians and the Association of 
American Physicians and Surgeons are both opposed to any legislation 
which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance. We have 
already talked about the vaccine being approved last June and the 
studies that were done, and it is approved for females age 9 to 26.
  But what they don't know yet, and I have talked to the company that 
manufactured Gardasil, they say that they really don't know how long 
the vaccine will last and how much immunity will be given. They think 
about 5 years, but they are not sure. Maybe it will last longer. Maybe 
when they do blood studies 5 years later, they will find that the 
antibody level against this type 16 and 18 HPV virus is high enough 
that the person doesn't need a booster. But like tetanus shots, of 
course we know that very typically, the same thing with hepatitis, 
sometimes these vaccines, the immunity will subside, and the patient is 
once again at risk, and they will have to get another shot.

  So if the vaccine gives immunity for 5 years, and you give it to 
every single 11-year-old, I would say 99.99 percent of whom are not 
sexually active, and you spend $500 either through their own insurance 
program or out of Mom and Dad's pocket or subsidized through the 
Federal Government, Medicare, Medicaid; you give them that shot and it 
lasts 5 years, and let's just assume it wears off by the time they are 
16, just about the time that they are falling in love and become 
sexually active with their boyfriend, and that is the very

[[Page H2740]]

time that they need the protection, and the vaccine has worn off, and 
we have no guidance. At this point we have no guidance.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the wrong thing to do, and my bill 
would say that in any situation where this is a voluntary program, an 
opt-in program, not an opt-out, we don't make parents jump through 
hoops and go get a notarized signature, or take a half day off work and 
go to their doctor and maybe have to have paid for a doctor appointment 
just so they can get a letter signed so their child doesn't have to get 
this vaccine. That is insanity.
  We need to do a good job. We physicians, those of my colleagues who 
are still practicing, especially my good OB/GYN friends across this 
country and primary care doctors everywhere, pediatricians need to talk 
to their parents, talk to their patients and explain that this great 
vaccine is available, and it has a potential for great good. And I am 
sure that many, many doses of those vaccines will be sold.
  And I hear my colleagues in this body many times bashing the 
pharmaceutical companies and Big Pharma, and I heard that so much as we 
were passing the great Medicare prescription drug part D program for 
our needy seniors back in November of 2003, really beat up on the 
pharmaceutical industry. But this is a good company, and this should be 
a profitable product for them. And when they first came out with the 
vaccine, Mr. Speaker, it was their recommendation, and they worked with 
State legislators, particularly female State legislators, across the 
country and said maybe this would be a good idea to have it mandatory 
in the schools.
  But to their credit, after this Governor made it mandatory, not by 
legislation, but just by rules and regulations in his decision, there 
was so much public outcry against that that the company now understands 
that that is not the right way to go, and that is to their great 
credit. They understand that they have got a great product, but it is 
not something that should be mandatory. It should be available. It 
should be available, though, for those who need it most.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a real strong advocate for a public education. Now, 
I have a background of going to a Catholic school when I was growing 
up, but I also have a background of being on a school board in the city 
of Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County, my first venture into public 
service, and I love that public school system. And all my children, 
adults now, all four, and thank God I am soon to be the father of my 
seventh grandchild by those four children, went to that public school 
system, and we loved it. We had friends that either home-schooled their 
children or went to private school for various and sundry reasons, and 
I don't argue with that at all. In fact, given the same circumstances, 
I would maybe have made the same choices. But I want to see our public 
schools in this country, in my State of Georgia, in every State, I want 
to see them thrive and do well. And I firmly believe in the principles 
of No Child Left Behind, that each and every youngster, no matter where 
they started in life, that they have that equal opportunity at the 
brass ring in our public system schools across this country.

                              {time}  2200

  But when you start doing things like this, and that is why at the 
start of the hour, when I said, you know, this might not be a marquis 
issue like what is going on in the Middle East or global warming or the 
economy, this is hugely important, because if you force this, if you 
mandate this in the public school system, you are going to see, you 
talk about a flight without vouchers to home schooling and to private 
schooling, and we don't want to see that. I don't want to see that. I 
want what is best for the youngsters. And I think that we need to keep 
a hands-off in regard to this.
  I have got a few letters here, Mr. Speaker, that I could share. I 
have got one from a Phyllis Schlafly with the Eagle Forum who is 
supporting us on this issue.
  I have a letter here from the Concerned Women of America. I will just 
read the first paragraph. And this is what they say: ``Dear friends, 
CWA, Concerned Women for America, gives kudos to Representative Phil 
Gingrey, Republican from Georgia, a former obstetrician gynecologist, 
on a bill that he plans to introduce. Congressman Gingrey's bill will 
prohibit Federal funds from being used to implement a mandatory, let me 
emphasize, a mandatory vaccine program for human papilloma virus, a 
sexually transmitted disease and a cause of cervical cancer. CWA urges 
you to call your Member of Congress and ask them not only to cosponsor 
this bill, but to take whatever action they can to pass it.''
  I appreciate that, and it is not for kudos or thanks that I am up 
here tonight. Mr. Speaker, as we do these Special Orders on both sides 
of the aisle, people do this because they have a commitment to a cause. 
And I have a commitment to a cause, and that is the cause of our young 
people that we make sure that we don't take away the parental right to 
decide. That is sacrosanct in my mind, and that is why I am here 
tonight spending this time with my colleagues to try to urge you to 
sign on to H.R. 1153, and let's do this right.
  Once again, as I move to closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure 
that everybody listening in this Chamber and anybody that can hear my 
voice far and near understands that this bill simply says, if you force 
it upon our public school children, whatever State we are referring to, 
then we are not going to pay for that for those children who otherwise 
can't afford it. But absolutely, if it is appropriately done, and it is 
a voluntary program, an opt-in program, and I think parents are smart 
enough, and certainly young girls, when they get to high school, are 
smart enough to know that if this is available, they are going to take 
advantage of it; and to understand that if they don't have insurance, 
and they can't afford it, that we have these programs, these Federal-
State programs like Medicaid and like the SCHIP program, and the 
Federal childhood vaccination program, so that this opportunity will 
not be denied to those who need it, as Representative Garrett pointed 
out, but we won't be wasting money on those who don't need it and don't 
want it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close. And I want to thank my 
colleagues. I want to thank you for your attention. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio, our new Member, Mr. Jordan, and I want to thank my 
classmate, Member Scott Garrett from New Jersey, for being with us 
tonight.

                          ____________________