[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ROBERT W. NEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 28, 2003

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1986, Congress established the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault compensation system that 
provided for quick and fair recovery for those who experience injuries 
related to a vaccination. It assured that victims would not have to go 
through long and expensive litigation with uncertain recovery.
  Unfortunately, plaintiffs' attorneys recently began to seek ways 
around the administrative compensation program created by the act. They 
are trying to somehow distinguish injuries related to ingredients in 
vaccines from the vaccines themselves. The courts have uniformly 
rejected these attempts to circumvent the statue. It is the claimants, 
however, that suffer. Rather than receive the expedient compensation to 
which they are entitled under the vaccine program, they are drawn 
through a lengthy court proceeding--ultimately just to find themselves 
required by the court to file a claim under the no-fault system. 
Claimants do not lose any rights in this system because as a bipartisan 
coalition of the Congress set it up, claimants who are not satisfied 
with the compensation award through the program can then opt to proceed 
to traditional litigation.
  The vaccine ingredient provisions in the Homeland Security Act sought 
to clarify current law and ensure that claims for all vaccine related 
injuries go through the vaccine program. Unfortunately, that purpose 
has been misconstrued in the media due to the manner in which the 
provisions came to be in the Homeland Security Act. I support the 
repeal of the vaccine injury provisions to allow for further discussion 
and explanation of these measures. These measures did not change 
existing law and their repeal should not be seen as an attempt to 
change existing law.

                          ____________________