View source for Self-executing rule

{{Short description|Procedural measure used by the United States Congress}}
{{United States House of Representatives}}
The '''self-executing rule''', also known as "'''deem and pass'''" is a resolution that a bill be deemed to have passed (or, more commonly, a resolution that a bill be deemed to have passed with a certain amendment); if the resolution passes, the bill is automatically deemed to have passed with the amendment set forth in the resolution itself. This procedural measure has been used by the [[United States Congress]] to approve a legislative rule that contains such a provision, the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] then deems a second piece of legislation as approved without requiring a separate vote, as long as it is specified in the rule. That is, if the vote on the rule passes, then the second piece of legislation is passed as part of the rule vote. 

When considering a [[Bill (law)|bill]] for debate, the House must first adopt a "special rule" for the debate as proposed by the [[United States House Committee on Rules|House Rules Committee]]. The special rule is a resolution which specifies which issues or bills are to be considered by the House, how much time allotted for debate on such matters, and which proposed amendments will be allowed to be voted on. If the House votes to approve a rule that contains a self-executing provision, it simultaneously agrees to dispose of the separate matter as specified by the rule. For example, modifications or amendments can be approved while the underlying bill is also approved at the same time.<ref name="crs" />

The procedure is often used to streamline the legislative process, although some legal scholars question whether the process is constitutional.<ref name="huff" /><ref name="slaughter" />

==Uses==
The first use of the self-executing rule, then known as a "deeming resolution," was in 1933.<ref name="huff" /><ref>{{Cite web|last=Grim|first=Ryan|date=2010-05-16|title=House Has Long History Of Political Cowardice, Prolific Use Of 'Deeming Resolutions'|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-has-long-history-of_n_500623|access-date=2021-07-14|website=HuffPost|language=en}}</ref> 

From the 95th to the 98th Congresses (1977–1984) the self-executing rule was used eight times; it was then used 20 times under [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|House Speaker]] [[Tip O’Neill]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]) in the 99th Congress, and 18 times under Speaker [[Jim Wright]] (D) in the 100th. Under Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]) there were 38 self-executing rules in the 104th Congress and 52 in the 105th (1995–1998). Under Speaker [[Dennis Hastert]] (R) there were 40 self-executing rules in the 106th Congress, 42 in the 107th and 30 in the 108th (1999–2007).<ref name="wilson" />

In March 2010, the procedure was one option considered, but then rejected, by Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] (D) and congressional Democrats to pass the [[Reconciliation Act of 2010]] ({{USBill|111|HR|4872}}) and the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] ({{USBill|111|HR|3590}}), as part of President Obama's [[Health care reform debate in the United States|health care reform initiative]].<ref name="post" /><ref name="politico" /><ref name="post2" />

==Legal arguments==
Some analysts have questioned the constitutionality of the self-executing rule.<ref name="huff" /> Some lawyers and public advocacy groups cite the 1998 [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case ''[[Clinton v. City of New York]]'' relating to the [[line item veto]],<ref name="clinton" /> and the 1983 case ''[[Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha]]'' 462 U.S. 919 (1983) relating to the [[legislative veto]] to support these claims.<ref name="slaughter" /><ref name="chadha" /> Others point to a 2006 case before the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] regarding the [[Deficit Reduction Act of 2005|Deficit Reduction Act]], which, in part, ruled in favor of the self-executing provision.<ref name="huff" /><ref name="pc1" /> That ruling was upheld on appeal in 2007, but was never argued before the Supreme Court.<ref name="pc2" />

==See also==
* [[Standing Rules of the United States House of Representatives]]
* [[Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em|
refs=
<ref name="clinton">{{cite court|litigants= Clinton v. City of New York|vol= 524|reporter= U.S.|opinion= 417|pinpoint=|court= [[United States Supreme Court|USS]]|date=1998|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/524/417/case.html}}</ref>

<ref name="chadha">{{cite court|litigants= Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha|vol= 462|reporter= U.S.|opinion= 919|pinpoint=|court= [[United States Supreme Court|USS]]|date= 1983|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/462/919/case.html|quote=}}</ref>

<ref name="crs">{{cite web|url=http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf|title="Self-Executing" Rules Reported by the House Rules Committee|last=Oleszek|first=Walter J.|date=December 21, 2006 | publisher=Congressional Research Service|accessdate=March 16, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="huff">{{cite web|last=Linkins|first=Jason|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html|title=Health Care Opponents Demonize 'Deem And Pass' As The Media Gets It Wrong|publisher=HuffingtonPost.com|date=2010-03-16|accessdate=2010-03-16}}</ref> 

<ref name="pc1">{{cite court|litigants= Public Citizen v. Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Columbia|vol= 451|reporter= F.Supp.2d|opinion= 109|pinpoint=|court= [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|DDC]]|date=2006|url=https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv0523-15}}</ref>

<ref name="pc2">{{cite court|litigants= Public Citizen v. Clerk, United States District Court for the District of  Columbia|vol= 486|reporter= F.3d|opinion= 1342|pinpoint=|court= [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia|CADC]]|date=2007|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/065232A.pdf}}</ref>

<ref name="politico">{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/A_dizzying_array_of_options_to_pass_health_care.html|title=A dizzying array of options to pass health care|date=March 9, 2010 | work=Live Pulse Blog|publisher=Politico.com|accessdate= March 16, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="post">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html|title=House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it|last=Montgomery|first=Lori|author2=Paul Kane |date= March 16, 2010 |work=washingtonpost.com|accessdate= March 16, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="post2">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001651_pf.html|title=House leaders plan separate health vote, rejecting 'deem and pass'|last=Montgomery|first=Lori |date=2010-03-20|newspaper=Washington Post|accessdate=21 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="slaughter">{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html|title='Slaughter Solution' could face legal challenge|last=Barbash|first=Fred|date=2010-03-16|publisher=Politico.com|accessdate=17 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="wilson">{{cite web|url=http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829|last=Wolfensberger|first=Don|date=2006-06-19|title=House Executes Deliberation With Special Rules|publisher=Roll Call|accessdate=16 March 2010}}</ref>
}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite web|url=http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf|title="Self-Executing" Rules Reported by the House Rules Committee|last=Oleszek|first=Walter J.|date=December 21, 2006 | publisher=Congressional Research Service}}

==External links==
* [http://www.thecapitol.net/glossary/s.htm#Self-Executing%20Rule|TheCapitolNet Glossary "Self Executing Rule"]

[[Category:United States House of Representatives]]
[[Category:Parliamentary procedure]]