PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 8, 2005
Vaccine Accessibility for Children and Seniors Act of 2005 or the VACS Act of 2005 - Establishes an exclusive Federal cause of action for claims arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, except for a compensation proceeding under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program). Preempts all State actions for damages arising from such an injury or death.
Defines "vaccine" to include any preservative, ingredient, or component of a vaccine.
Requires a district court to suspend an attorney from the practice of law in such court for one year if the attorney has violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the attorney to certify the validity of claims filed in connection with a vaccine suit three times during that attorney's career. Allows the court to suspend the attorney for any additional period that the court considers appropriate.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends Federal vaccine civil trial procedures to insert a new first stage to determine whether competent and reliable scientific evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff's alleged vaccine-related injury or death was caused in fact by the vaccine.
Requires the dismissal with prejudice or removal to a Federal court of all pending State vaccine cases.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to jointly submit a report to Congress concerning recommendations to ensure that injured patients with legitimate claims are rapidly and appropriately compensated through the Program in a less adversarial manner.
People & committees
Rep. Keller, Ric [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.650 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.650 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.650 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.650 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.