Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public option and be subject to any personal income tax increases levied as a result of healthcare legislation, regardless of their annual gross income.

Referred to House Ways and Means

H.Res.657 through Congress

H.Res.657 is considered only in the House.

HouseJul 17, 2009IntroducedOfficial record

Major milestones in the imported record. See all actions.

Separate related Senate measures (1)

These are different measures identified as related by Congress.gov. Their text and outcomes may differ; they are not the Senate stage of H.Res.657.

Related Senate measure: S.Res.243 A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that, upon the establishment of, or enactment of legislation creating, a public health care plan, Members of Congress shall lose access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and shall be required to enroll in the public plan.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 17, 2009

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public health insurance option (if one is established as a choice within the Health Insurance Exchange); (2) Members of Congress whose individual or joint modified adjusted gross incomes fall below the minimum amounts at which a surtax is imposed shall be subject to a 1% surtax; and (3) Members' Campaign Committees should be required to provide health insurance coverage to their employees.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Davis, Artur [D-AL-7] · D–AL

Committees

Ways and Means Committee
Committee on House Administration

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 17, 2009
Referred to House Ways and Means
Jul 17, 2009
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Jul 17, 2009
Referred to House Administration
Jul 17, 2009
Introduced in House
Jul 17, 2009
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Jul 17, 2009 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.657 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.657, 111th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public option and be subject to any personal income tax increases levied as a result of healthcare legislation, regardless of their annual gross income.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/657

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2009-07-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres657/BILLS-111hres657ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:19:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.657 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.657 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.657, 111th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public option and be subject to any personal income tax increases levied as a result of healthcare legislation, regardless of their annual gross income.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/657

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2009-07-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres657/BILLS-111hres657ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:19:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.657 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.657 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.657, 111th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public option and be subject to any personal income tax increases levied as a result of healthcare legislation, regardless of their annual gross income.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/657

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2009-07-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres657/BILLS-111hres657ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:19:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.657 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.657 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.657, 111th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of Congress who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) should be automatically enrolled in the public option and be subject to any personal income tax increases levied as a result of healthcare legislation, regardless of their annual gross income.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/657

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2009-07-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres657/BILLS-111hres657ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:19:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.657 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.