Order Code 98-710 GOV
Updated February 20, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
"Self-Executing" Rules Reported by the
House Committee on Rules
Walter J. Oleszek
Senior Specialist
Government and Finance Division
House Rule X assigns the Committee on Rules jurisdiction over the “order of
business of the House.” The panel's most noteworthy responsibility is to issue order of
business resolutions, usually called “rules,” “special rules,” or, less commonly, “special
orders.” Chamber adoption of these rules accomplishes two main objectives: it permits
the House to take up measures that typically lack a convenient right-of-way to the floor,
and it defines the procedural conditions — for example, time for debate and the structure
of the amendment process — for considering the legislation.
The committee's important scheduling role has meant that congressional scholars and
others have classified rules in various ways. For example, an “open” rule affords any
lawmaker an opportunity to offer amendments to a bill so long as they are in compliance
with the House's standing rules; a “closed” rule forbids anyone from offering amendments
with an exception usually made for amendments recommended by the committee that
reported the measure. Starting about two decades ago, in response to developments such
as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the
amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more
procedurally imaginative and complex rules.
Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a “self-
executing” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed”
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.”
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Traditional Use. Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the precedents
(House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown), self-executing rules for these purposes
“eliminate the need for a motion to agree with, recede from, or otherwise dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.” Brown further states that such resolutions are sometimes called
“hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution as drafted, `hereby'
agrees to that [Senate] amendment, no further action by the House is required, and the
[Senate] amendment is never itself before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Contemporary Use. Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving
House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant
substantive and sometimes controversial propositions. Examples from the Congressional
Record will illustrate:
! On Aug. 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that
automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for
consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline
flights of two hours or less duration.
! H.Res. 187, which the House adopted on July 13, 1995, self-executed the
following language into the base text of an appropriations bill: “subject to
passage by the House of Representatives of a bill authorizing such
appropriation.” The purpose of this passage was to require that the
money made available in the bill for the National Endowment for the Arts
would be available for expenditure only upon House passage of an
authorization measure.
! On Mar. 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that
incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing the
employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute made in
order as original text.
! H.Res. 239, agreed to on Sep. 24, 1997, automatically incorporated into
the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for the
2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its
constitutionality.
! A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic
adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order
as original text. The rule was adopted on Nov. 5, 1997, with bipartisan
support.
! On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by
H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the
intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their
employees an early-out retirement program.

---