[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     VACCINE INGREDIENT PROVISIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. ROY BLUNT

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 5, 2003

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 included 
provisions related to vaccine injuries that have been misunderstood and 
misconstrued. I believed then and now that these provisions are good 
public policy: they clarify that vaccine injury claims involving 
vaccine ingredients, such as preservatives, are subject to the same no-
fault compensation system as other vaccine-related injuries established 
by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The alternative 
is needless, time consuming, and expensive litigation that is not in 
the best interests of those who believe they have been injured.
  Congress established the Vaccine Program in 1986 for two reasons. The 
first was to provide definite, speedy, and generous compensation for 
those who suffer from vaccine-related injuries. The second was to 
address litigation and insurance costs that were spiraling out of 
control, which forced current manufacturers to leave the industry and 
discouraging others from developing important lifesaving vaccines.
  Now, of all times, is not the moment to allow the Vaccine Program to 
be dismantled. When our enemies are engaged and determined to develop 
and expand their supply of chemical weapons, when we continue to face a 
terrorists threat at home, and when more and more of our troops are 
stationed oversees, we need effective vaccine production. We cannot 
afford to slow research and development, or experience a critical 
shortage of vaccines.
  But this is precisely what is occurring today. Personal injury 
lawyers, who would like the larger fee that they might receive through 
litigation, are chipping away at the Vaccine Act in our Nation's 
courtrooms. They are trying to distinguish injuries allegedly related 
to ingredients contained in vaccines, such as preservatives, from the 
vaccine itself, in order to escape the no-fault system. The courts have 
done a good job at rejecting these attempts. The provisions in the 
Homeland Security Act simply sought to codify these decisions, preserve 
the intent of Congress in establishing the Vaccine Program, and ensure 
that the injured receive speedy and fair compensation.
  I continue to support the vaccine ingredient provisions in the 
Homeland Security Act. I understand the provisions are being repealed 
without prejudice and not because of the substance. I am confident that 
these provisions will proceed through the House and be enacted. By 
reenacting the provisions, I believe Congress will address the issue in 
a manner that ensures the broad availability of vaccines for the 
American people.

                          ____________________