[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   VACCINE INGREDIENT PROVISIONS IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PETE SESSIONS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 29, 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
Congress clarified that all injuries allegedly related to an ingredient 
in a vaccine should be heard under the quick and inexpensive, no fault 
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program established in 1986. Though this 
was a simple clarification of existing law, some people cried foul. 
They claimed these provisions were inserted into the bill as a favor to 
pharmaceutical companies and that they would somehow take away the 
rights of unfortunate people who have experienced an injury. In fact, 
it did no such thing.
  The vaccine ingredient provisions in the Homeland Security Act 
reaffirmed Congressional intent of the Vaccine Program's jurisdiction 
over all claims of vaccine related injuries, and that preservatives 
contained in vaccines were not subject to some special exception to the 
program. It did not change the state of the law, but ensured that those 
experiencing injuries from vaccine ingredients were not given false 
hope or having their time wasted having their lawsuit dismissed by the 
court for not going through the Vaccine Program.
  The controversy surrounding these provisions is over the process by 
which they were adopted, not the language itself Their repeal would not 
change the law in any way; as courts have correctly decided, injuries 
allegedly resulting from ingredients in vaccines fall under the Vaccine 
Program. Furthermore, the lack of these provisions may add uncertainty 
in the vaccine market and higher insurance rates for vaccine 
manufacturers something that our nation attempted to avoid in 1986 and 
may be even more important in today's environment. Nevertheless, 
repealing the provisions will remove the cloud cast over their benefit. 
If this language is repealed, Congress should reintroduce the 
provisions in another separate measure so that we may have more debate 
on the actual language and the public can be assured of the need for 
this clarification of the law.

                          ____________________