Order Code RS21255
Updated September 15, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Motions to Proceed to Consider in the Senate:
Who Offers Them?
Richard S. Beth
Specialist in the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Summary
In recent practice, the Senate generally concedes to its majority leader the
prerogative of calling up measures for floor consideration. Most measures are called up
by unanimous consent, but when this consent cannot be obtained, a motion to proceed
to consider is used. Sometimes a Senator other than the majority leader offers this
motion, but usually only in coordination with him and as his designee. Of 261 motions
to proceed offered in the Senate from 1979 through 2002, all but eight were evidently
offered either by the majority leader or at his direction. Only one of the remaining eight
successfully resulted in consideration of the measure in question. This report will be
updated at the end of each Congress.
The Motion to Proceed and the Senate Agenda
Business may reach the floor of the Senate for consideration in three ways: pursuant
to a call of the Calendar, by unanimous consent, or through agreement to a motion to
proceed to consider. The formal Calendar call has for several decades become disused,
and the motion to proceed to consider is normally used only when unanimous consent
cannot be obtained. As a consequence, most measures (bills and resolutions) today reach
the floor by unanimous consent; the number called up through a motion to proceed to
consider has not exceeded a few dozen in any recent Congress.1 The measures called up
by motion, however, are more likely to be controversial or highly contested.
Senate Rule VIII, paragraph 2, provides for the motion to proceed to consider a
measure or matter (often called simply a “motion to proceed”).2 The rule places no
1 Items of executive business (i.e., nominations and treaties) are also called up by unanimous
consent or through motions to proceed to consider. This report, however, examines only motions
to proceed to consider legislative business.
2 U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual, Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
restrictions on who may offer the motion.3 In the course of the twentieth century,
however, the Senate came increasingly to accord its majority leader the responsibility for
arranging and implementing its floor agenda. The Senate nowadays normally concedes
to the majority leader the prerogative of calling up measures, either by motion or by
unanimous consent. In the absence of this deference, it would become difficult for any
majority leader to carry out the function of managing the schedule. Even in recent
Congresses, nevertheless, some motions to proceed have also been offered by other
Senators. These actions suggest questions about how far Senate deference to leadership
scheduling efforts extends.
Senators Offering the Motion to Proceed
Most measures reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent. This consent may be
granted in the form of either (1) a simple request for unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider the measure, or (2) a broader unanimous consent agreement that
either specifies when the measure shall come before the Senate, or authorizes the majority
leader to call it up at some subsequent point, and also sets terms for its consideration. If
a Senator objects to such a request, especially a simple unanimous consent request, the
majority leader may then offer a motion to proceed. Also, if the leadership is aware that
a unanimous consent request would meet objection, the motion to proceed may be offered
without first making such a request.
In contemporary Senate practice, requests for unanimous consent to consider a
measure, especially broad unanimous consent agreements, are most often propounded by
the majority leader personally. Sometimes, however, especially in the case of simple
consent requests, they are offered by the majority whip, or by another Senator acting in
coordination with and as the designee of the majority leader. Finally, such a request also
may be offered by a Senator not acting in coordination with the majority leader, but in that
case the leader, or a Senator acting for him, will normally object to it, thereby protecting
majority party control of the floor agenda.
Similarly, motions to proceed to consider measures are most often offered by the
majority leader personally, but they also may be offered by the majority whip or another
Senator acting for the majority leader. In addition, Senators have occasionally offered
motions to proceed in the absence of direction or even consent from the majority leader.
The table on the following page displays the number of motions to proceed to consider
offered by the majority leader, the majority whip, other designees of the majority leader,
and other Senators, in the 96th through 107th Congresses (1979-2002).
2 (...continued)
Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, S.Doc. 107-1, 107th Cong., 1st
sess., prepared by Andrea LaRue under the direction of Kennie L. Gill, Staff Director and Chief
Counsel, Committee on Rules and Administration (Washington: GPO, 2002), sec. 8.2.
3 A motion to proceed may also be offered pursuant to a statute that establishes procedures for
expedited consideration of a specific measure, such as a resolution of approval or disapproval.
In general, these statutes too place no formal restriction on who may offer the motion to proceed.
For information on these “expedited procedures,” see CRS Report 98-888, “Fast-Track” or
Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements, and Implications, by Christopher M. Davis.

---

CRS-3
Motions to proceed offered by the majority whip were presumed to have been
offered in coordination with the majority leader. Other Senators offering motions were
also presumed to be acting as designees of the majority leader unless the record of
proceedings afforded positive evidence to the contrary.
In most such cases, the
proceedings offered positive evidence that the motion was offered by direction of the
majority leader.
Sometimes, for example, Senators offering these motions stated
explicitly that they were doing so on behalf of the majority leader. In other cases, the
Senator offering the motion also submitted a petition for cloture on the motion that was
signed, among others, by the majority leader. On other occasions, the Senator offering
the motion did so in the course of a series of actions normally carried out by the majority
leader or his designee.
Senators Offering Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures,
96th-107th Congresses
Offered By
Congress
Total
Majority
and (Years)
Majority
Majority
Leadership
Other
Leader
Whip
Designee
96 (1979-1980)
15
11
1
1
2
97 (1981-1982)
12
10
1
0
1
98 (1983-1984)
22
20
2
0
0
99 (1985-1986)
14
10
0
3
1
100 (1987-1988)
24
24
0
0
0
101 (1989-1990)
16
15
0
0
1
102 (1991-1992)
40
30
7
3
0
103 (1993-1994)
11
10
1
0
0
104 (1995-1996)
14
10
2
2
0
105 (1997-1998)
30
20
0
9
1
106 (1999-2000)
41
38
1
1
1
107 (2001-2002)
22
13
8
0
1
Total
261
211
23
19
8
Percent of total
100
81
9
7
3
Source: Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress; Congressional Record; Journal of the
Senate.
Method and Sources of Data. From the 97th Congress onward, the motions to
proceed accounted for in the table were identified through an electronic search of
legislative status information in the congressional Legislative Information System. For
earlier Congresses, this database contains only limited legislative status information, and
motions to proceed in the 96th Congress were identified instead through examination of

---

CRS-4
the Journal of the Senate. For all Congresses, information about who offered the motions
was obtained from the Congressional Record and the Journal of the Senate.
Sometimes more than one motion to proceed was offered on a single measure. This
may occur if the Senate fails to adopt the first motion, or returns the measure to the
Calendar after some consideration and later takes it up again. The table treats each motion
to proceed separately; in other words, it shows the number of motions to proceed actually
offered on bills and resolutions, not the number of bills and resolutions on which motions
to proceed were offered. Also, the table includes motions to proceed not only to the initial
consideration of measures, but also to consider conference reports.4
Motions Not Offered by Direction of the Majority Leader
Summary and Context. By the criteria noted, during the 12 Congresses studied,
only eight motions to proceed to consider could be identified as offered other than by
direction of the majority leader. Of these eight motions, four were offered by the minority
leader, and three by other minority party Senators. Also, seven of the eight motions were
offered under the general rules of the Senate, while the eighth was offered pursuant to a
statute establishing an expedited procedure that makes privileged the consideration by the
Senate of a specified measure, such as a resolution of approval or disapproval.5
Only one of these eight motions ultimately succeeded in bringing about consideration
of the measure in question. Three of the eight were tabled; two were ruled out of order;
and one received no further action after the Senate voted not to invoke cloture on it. The
one offered by a majority party Senator was adopted, but this action was immediately
afterwards vitiated by unanimous consent. The one offered pursuant to an expedited
procedure was adopted, and the Senate proceeded to a final disposition of the measure.
Comparable data on the dispositions of motions to proceed offered by, or in
coordination with, the majority leader have not been comprehensively compiled.
Normally, however, few motions to proceed are defeated outright, because a motion
unlikely to command majority support would not likely be offered in the first place.
Instead, most of those not adopted never reach a final vote. Some fail to reach a vote
because the Senate ultimately agrees to take up the measure by unanimous consent. In
other cases, for example, a filibuster prevents a vote from occurring, or the motion is
either displaced by subsequent action or withdrawn.
4 The motion to proceed to consider a measure is normally debatable, except under certain special
circumstances. The motion to proceed to consider a conference report, an item of executive
business, a measure subject to an expedited procedure, or another privileged matter is generally
not debatable. This report does not consider which of the motions to proceed it examines were
debatable or non-debatable.
5 A motion to proceed may also be offered pursuant to a statute that establishes procedures for
expedited consideration of a specific measure, such as a resolution of approval or disapproval.
In general, these statutes too place no formal restriction on who may offer the motion to proceed.
For information on these “expedited procedures,” see CRS Report 98-888, “Fast-Track” or
Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements, and Implications, by Christopher M. Davis.

---

CRS-5
Similarly, this report does not attempt to present data on unanimous consent requests
to consider measures or the frequency with which different Senators propound them.
Motions Not Offered by Direction of the Majority Leader. The following
paragraphs describe the eight motions to proceed to consider that were not offered by
direction of the majority leader. Each description identifies the measure number and
subject, the Congress and date of action, and the disposition of the motion to proceed,
with a citation to the Congressional Record and (where available) Senate Journal. Each
description also notes any special circumstances surrounding the motion to proceed and
any subsequent action on the measure. This additional information was drawn principally
from the Record and the legislative status database of the Legislative Information System
of Congress.
S.Con.Res. 119, 96th Congress. On September 25, 1980, the Senate minority leader
moved to proceed to consider S.Con.Res. 119, revising the congressional budget
resolution.
The motion was offered pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement
previously secured by the Senate majority leader, which also limited the time for debate
on the motion. The Senate tabled the motion to proceed, 55 to 36. (Congressional
Record, vol. 126, pp. 27211-27216; Senate Journal, p. 642.) The Senate later considered
the resolution, ultimately adopting the House companion measure, H.Con.Res. 448, which
then went on to final congressional adoption.
H.R. 5829, 96th Congress. Also on September 25, 1980, the Senate minority leader
moved to proceed to consider H.R. 5829, a tax-related measure that had been reported
from the Senate Committee on Finance with an amendment reducing income tax rates.
The minority leader did so immediately after the action just described, and pursuant to the
same unanimous consent agreement, which also limited the time for debate on this
motion. The Senate tabled the motion to proceed, 54 to 38, and the measure received no
subsequent floor action. (Congressional Record, vol. 126, pp. 27216-27221; Senate
Journal, p. 642.)
H.R. 4331, 97th Congress. On July 31, 1981, a minority party Senator moved to
proceed to consider H.R. 4331, to restore minimum social security benefits. The chair
held the motion to proceed out of order on grounds that the measure was not yet on the
Calendar. The Senator who had offered the motion to proceed appealed the ruling, but
the Senate sustained the chair, 57 to 30. (Congressional Record, vol. 127, p. 19148;
Senate Journal, p. 426.) Subsequently, after the measure reached the Calendar, the Senate
took it up by unanimous consent and passed it, and it became P.L. 97-123.
H.R. 1460, 99th Congress. On September 10, 1985, the Senate minority leader
moved to proceed to consider the conference report on H.R. 1460, for sanctions against
apartheid. The minority leader withdrew the motion to proceed after filing a motion for
cloture thereon. (Congressional Record, vol. 131, p. 23226; Senate Journal, p. 421.) At
the time these proceedings occurred, the conference report had already been called up
pursuant to action by the Senate majority leader; two cloture motions had been offered on
it; and the first cloture motion had been rejected. Subsequently, the Senate rejected the
second cloture motion on the conference report and the cloture motion on the motion to
proceed to consider it.
Thereafter, the Senate did not further consider either the
conference report or a motion to proceed to consider it.

---

CRS-6
S. 2944, 101st Congress. On October 27, 1990, a majority party Senator moved to
proceed to consider S. 2944, for aid to democratization in Eastern Europe. The Senate
agreed to the motion by voice vote, but immediately thereafter vitiated its action by
unanimous consent, “in accordance with the customs of the Senate, and comity,” upon
request of the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, who was also the sponsor of the
measure. (Congressional Record, vol. 136, p. 36335; Senate Journal, p. 867.) The
Senate did not subsequently consider the measure.
H.R. 4250, 105th Congress. On October 9, 1998, the Senate minority leader moved
to proceed to consider H.R. 4250, on rights of medical patients under group health plans.
The Senate tabled the motion to proceed, 50 to 47, and took no subsequent action on the
measure. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 144, p. S12100; Senate Journal, p. 807.)
S.Res. 44, 106th Congress. On February 12, 1999, a minority party Senator moved
to proceed to consider S.Res. 44, to censure President Clinton. The chair held the motion
to proceed out of order on grounds that the measure was not on the Calendar. Pursuant
to the required prior notice, the same Senator then moved to suspend the rules to permit
consideration of the motion to proceed. Adoption of a motion to suspend the rules
requires a two-thirds’ vote. The Senate defeated a motion to postpone indefinitely
consideration of the motion to suspend the rules, 43 to 56.
Pursuant to a previous
unanimous consent agreement, the motion to suspend the rules was deemed withdrawn
because the motion to postpone had been defeated by less than a two-thirds’ vote.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 145, p. S1462; Senate Journal, p. 151.) The
resolution was subsequently referred to committee, and the Senate took no further action
thereon.
S.J.Res. 34, 107th Congress. On July 9, 2002, the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 34,
which provided for approval of permanent nuclear waste repository site. S.J.Res. 34 had
been reported from that Committee several weeks earlier. This joint resolution of
approval was subject to expedited consideration under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425; 42 U.S.C. 10135), and the motion to proceed was
offered as privileged under that Act. Although the Act explicitly provides that “any
Member of the Senate” may move to proceed to consider a resolution of repository siting
approval, opponents of the measure had argued that the same deference should be granted
to the majority leader in making this motion as in making motions to proceed under the
Standing Rules. Although the Act provides that this motion to proceed be privileged and
non-debatable, a unanimous consent agreement was reached that (1) the motion be
debatable for four hours and thirty minutes, and (2) if the motion were agreed to, the
Senate would immediately vote, without further debate or amendment, on the companion
measure already passed by the House, H.J.Res. 87.6 Following the debate on the motion
to proceed, the Senate agreed to it, 60 to 39, then adopted H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote,
thereby clearing the measure for presentation to the President. (Congressional Record,
daily ed., vol. 148, pp. S6444-S6491.)
6 This unusual modification of a statutory procedure was apparently intended to preclude a
possible attempt by opponents to disrupt the statutory timetable by amending the joint resolution.

---