PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 7, 2014
Declares that the Secretary of the Treasury has failed to meet the specified requirement of the U.S. Constitution to take care that a law be faithfully executed, with respect to the departmental policy provided under the Department of the Treasury Notice 2013-45, as announced by the Department on July 2, 2013, pertaining to the one-year delay in the application of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to reporting requirements by providers of health insurance coverage, certain employers required to report on health insurance coverage, and related requirements under the Code concerning shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage.
Requires the House of Representatives to bring a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · R–CA
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 the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Committee on Rules, 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 Rules, 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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.Res.655 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.Res.655 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.Res.655 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.Res.655 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.