the Act. Therefore, the Vaccine Act is the “Act of Congress” which forms the basis of Terran’s claim, and there is little dispute that such a claim is one for presently due money damages. Indeed, we note that the Vaccine Act itself gives jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims to determine whether Terran is entitled to compensation, independent of the Tucker Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(a) (1994). Because jurisdiction is proper, the Court of Federal Claims had the power to address Terran’s argument based on the Constitution. See Beck v. Secretary, 924 F.2d 1029, 1036 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“It is, however, reasonable to infer that the [Vaccine] Act must confer on the Claims Court that power which is necessary to adjudicate the controversy before it.”); compare Connolly, 716 F.2d at 887 (<HOLDING>) with Jackson v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 765,
holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal holding that the court of claims did have jurisdiction over plaintiffs statutory claim for back pay including arguments based on the first amendment holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over any claims that could not exist independently of a contract holding that the uscfc did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim because plaintiffs claim of negligence sounds in tort holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim