Amendments Between the Houses:
Procedural Options and Effects
Elizabeth Rybicki
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
January 4, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41003
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Summary
The House and Senate must agree to the same measure with the same legislative language before
a bill can be presented to the President. To resolve differences between House and Senate
versions of legislation, Congress might appoint a conference committee to negotiate a
compromise that is then reported to each chamber for consideration. Alternatively, Congress
might use the process of amendment exchange. In this process, each chamber acts on the
legislation in turn, shuttling the measure back and forth, sometimes proposing alternatives in the
form of amendments, until both chambers have agreed to the same text.
The difference between a conference committee and an amendment exchange is not necessarily in
the way a policy compromise is reached, but in the formal parliamentary steps taken after the
principal negotiators have agreed to a compromise. After each chamber has passed its version of
the legislation, or in some cases even before that stage, Senators, Representatives, and staff from
the relevant committees of jurisdiction engage in policy discussions in an effort to craft
compromise legislation that can pass both chambers. These informal meetings and conversations
are sometimes referred to colloquially as “pre-conference,” although they need not be followed
by the convening of a formal conference committee. The phrase is applied generally to final-stage
efforts to prepare legislation for passage in both the House and the Senate.
The decision to use the amendment exchange route has procedural implications. Amendments
between the houses are not subject to the same procedures as conference reports. For example,
the potentially time-consuming steps for arranging a conference in the Senate and some of the
limitations on the content of conference committee reports do not apply to amendment exchange.
Furthermore, amendment exchange provides alternative opportunities to structure decisions,
because the policy compromise can be voted on as separate amendments between the houses,
instead of as a single legislative package. In addition, amendments between the houses are not
considered under all of the same procedures as bills on initial consideration. As a result, a
chamber might use this process to first consider what is effectively a new legislative proposal, or
a new combination of legislative proposals, in the form of an amendment between the houses. In
the Senate, House amendments are privileged, and therefore their consideration typically begins
immediately after the majority leader asks the Presiding Officer to lay them before the Senate. In
contrast, to begin consideration of a bill or resolution, the majority leader must either obtain
unanimous consent or make a motion to proceed to the measure, which is debatable in most
circumstances. Furthermore, in the House, consideration of Senate amendments is unlikely to
include an opportunity for a member of the minority party to offer a motion to recommit, an
opportunity that is generally assured on initial consideration of a bill or joint resolution.
In an amendment exchange, the formal actions the chambers generally take on amendments from
the other chamber are 1) to concur, 2) to concur with an amendment, or 3) to disagree. There is a
limit to the number of times each house can propose amendment(s) and send the measure back to
the other house, but in both chambers the limitation can be waived. In the contemporary House,
Senate amendments are typically disposed of through a special rule reported by the Committee on
Rules, a motion to suspend the rules, or by unanimous consent. In the Senate, consideration of
House amendments has the potential to become procedurally complex, particularly when the
Senate must dispose of multiple House amendments. Because House amendments, unlike
conference reports, are subject to amendment, the Senate majority leader might offer a motion to
dispose of the House amendment and then “fill the tree” to temporarily prevent any Senator from
proposing an alternative method of acting on the House amendment.
Congressional Research Service
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Resolving Legislative Differences: A Brief Overview.................................................................. 2
Select a Measure ................................................................................................................... 2
Agree on Same Legislative Language.................................................................................... 3
Senate Consideration of House Amendments............................................................................... 4
Laying House Amendments Before the Senate ...................................................................... 4
Motions in the Senate to Dispose of House Amendments....................................................... 5
Disposing of a Single House Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute............................ 5
Disposing of Multiple House Amendments...................................................................... 7
“Filling the Tree” on a Motion to Dispose of House Amendments ......................................... 8
Motions Necessary to “Fill the Tree”............................................................................... 9
“Filling the Tree” and Cloture ....................................................................................... 10
Comparison of Amendment Exchange and Conference Committee Procedures in the
Senate .............................................................................................................................. 11
House Consideration of Senate Amendments............................................................................. 14
Rules Committee: Calling Up and Disposing of Senate Amendments .................................. 15
Motion to Recommit Usually Not Allowed.................................................................... 16
Considering Multiple House Amendments to a Senate Amendment ............................... 17
Suspending the Rules to Dispose of Senate Amendments .................................................... 18
Unanimous Consent ............................................................................................................ 19
Comparison of Amendment Exchange and Conference Committee Procedures in the
House .............................................................................................................................. 19
Case Study: The Amendment Exchange on H.R. 3221, 110th Congress ...................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. The Amendment Exchange on H.R. 3221, 110th Congress........................................... 28
Tables
Table 1. Amendment Exchange and Conference Committees in the Senate: A Brief
Comparison of Key Procedures .............................................................................................. 12
Table 2. Amendment Exchange and Conference Committees in the House: A Brief
Comparison of Key Procedures .............................................................................................. 22
Table A-1. Resolving Differences on Measures That Became Public Law .................................. 29
Table A-2. House Consideration of Senate Amendments by Special Rule, Suspension, or
Unanimous Consent (to Measures That Became Public Law) ................................................. 29
Appendixes
Appendix. Tables on Procedures Used to Resolve Differences, 1999-2008 ................................ 29
Congressional Research Service
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 30
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Introduction
Congress relies on two formal means of resolving differences on House and Senate versions of
legislation: conference committee and amendment exchange. Historically, conference committees
have been used to resolve differences on major bills, where policy issues are complex and
differences between the chambers are likely to be greater. Amendment exchange is more likely to
be used when differences between the chambers are comparatively small, although from time to
time the chambers use it to resolve their differences on major legislation as well. In recent
Congresses, the use of conference committees to resolve differences has decreased, and during
the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the use of complicated amendment exchanges to resolve
differences increased.1
Regardless of the formal parliamentary mechanism chosen, in the contemporary Congress the
chambers generally arrive at a resolution of the substantive differences between House and Senate
versions of a measure through informal, bicameral discussions that might resemble conference
committee meetings even though neither
house has officially appointed conferees to
The difference between an amendment exchange and a
consult over a bill. Once the interested
conference committee is not necessarily in the way a
legislators have negotiated an acceptable
policy compromise is reached, but in the formal
compromise through these discussions, the
parliamentary steps taken after the principal negotiators
have agreed to a compromise.
compromise can then be embodied in an
amendment between the houses or, if
conferees have been formally appointed, in a conference report. In this way, the difference
between an amendment exchange and a conference committee is not necessarily in the way a
policy compromise is reached, but in the formal parliamentary steps taken after the principal
negotiators have agreed to a compromise.
The purpose of this report is to explain the procedural options for resolving differences through
amendment exchange, and to discuss the procedural effects of resolving differences through
amendment exchange as an alternative to conference committee. The report is arranged to
identify legislative options at each stage of the amendment exchange process, first for the Senate
and then for the House. For each chamber, key procedural differences between amendment
exchange and conference committee are also discussed, and then listed in Table 1 (Senate) and
Table 2 (House). The answers to frequently asked questions are highlighted throughout the report
in separate, shaded text boxes. The final section of the report describes a particularly complicated
case of amendment exchange from the 110th Congress to illustrate a variety of actions the
chambers might take.2
1 Data on this point is presented in Table A-1 of the Appendix. For more information on the causes of this recent
change, and its implications, see CRS Report RL34611, Whither the Role of Conference Committees: An Analysis, by
Walter J. Oleszek.
2 For a brief description of the amendment exchange procedure, the reader is referred to the three-page CRS Report 98-
812, Amendments Between the Houses, by Elizabeth Rybicki; for a full description of conference committee
procedures, the reader is referred to CRS Report 96-708, Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An
Introduction, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
Congressional Research Service
1
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Resolving Legislative Differences: A Brief Overview
The House and Senate must agree to the same legislative language in the same legislative vehicle
before the bill can be presented to the President. The requirement that they act on the same bill
with the identical text means that the House and Senate must 1) select a measure on which they
will both act and 2) agree on the same legislative language.
Select a Measure
The selection of the measure, or identifying which bill Congress will send to the President, does
not restrict either chamber from acting on its preferred legislative language. More specifically,
whether the chambers select an “H.R./H.J. Res.” or an “S./S.J. Res.” as the vehicle on which to
resolve differences will not necessarily affect what policy proposals a chamber considers on the
floor. Both the House and Senate can amend the legislation sent by the other chamber, and they
can amend it in its entirety.
The selection of a measure that both chambers will act on is usually straightforward.3 The bill that
passes a chamber first and is sent to the other chamber is normally the bill that is selected as the
vehicle and is eventually presented to the President. The Constitution requires, however, that all
revenue provisions originate in the House. The House interprets this to include all appropriations
measures as well, and the Senate generally defers to the House on this issue because it does not
affect the Senate’s ability to propose changes to the legislation. For this reason, measures raising
revenues or providing for appropriations that are sent to the President will carry a House bill
number (H.R. or H.J. Res.).4
Most of the time, neither chamber finds it advantageous to wait for the other to act before
beginning its own work on a major policy initiative. Typically, the committees of jurisdiction
from both chambers will consider legislation regardless of what action (if any) is taking place on
similar topics in the other chamber. At some point, however, the chambers must select one bill to
be the vehicle that is sent to the President. The selection of the vehicle is either done at the start of
floor consideration or at the very end. It can only be done at the beginning if one of the chambers
has already passed a bill on the subject, in which case the other chamber might choose to take up
that bill on the floor instead of legislation crafted by its own committee. Usually, in this situation,
an amendment(s) representing the work of the committee of jurisdiction is presented at the outset
of consideration, and if the amendment is a full-text substitute amendment it is effectively treated
as the text for further amendment by the chamber.5 Alternatively, a chamber can take up a bill
3 Strategic considerations can enter into decisions about which chamber should act first, as well as over which bill
should be selected as the vehicle to be sent to the President. For more information, see CRS Report 98-696, Resolving
Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by Elizabeth
Rybicki, pp. 2-5.
4 For more information, see CRS Report RS21236, Blue-Slipping: The Origination Clause in the House of
Representatives, by James V. Saturno.
5 In the House, this could be accomplished through the adoption of a special rule that makes in order committee
amendment(s) or provides either for a committee-recommended amendment to be automatically adopted or to be
considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment. In the Senate, if the committee has reported the House bill
with an amendment, that amendment is automatically pending when the bill is taken up on the Senate floor. If the
committee has not formally reported the House bill, then the floor manager can offer the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Congressional Research Service
2
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
reported from its own committee. At the conclusion of floor consideration of its own bill, the
chamber can then take up the companion bill passed by the other chamber, strike all of the text
after the enacting clause, and insert the text of the bill it originated.6 Either way, the chambers
have fulfilled the first requirement: selecting the same bill on which to act. The second step,
agreeing to the same legislative language, is generally more challenging.
Agree on Same Legislative Language
If one chamber passes a bill, and the other chamber agrees to it without amendment, then the
legislative process is complete and the bill is sent to the President. This is extremely common;
more than three-quarters of all legislation that became law in recent Congresses passed the
second-acting chamber without amendment. When major legislation passes both chambers this
way, however, it usually reflects extensive negotiations between the chambers prior to the passage
of the bill in either chamber. In other words, interested Members from the relevant committees
and their staff consult beforehand to ensure that the bill that passes the first-acting chamber will
be acceptable, without change, to the second-acting chamber.
If, on the other hand, one chamber considers a bill from the other chamber and amends it before
passing it, the House and Senate have acted on the same measure, but they have not agreed to the
same text. The chambers can resolve their differences over the text either: 1) through an
amendment exchange, when the chambers shuttle the bill and amendments back and forth
between them proposing alternatives in hopes that both houses eventually will agree on the same
position; or 2) through a conference committee, a panel of Members from each chamber that meet
to resolve the differences between the bill and the amendment(s) proposed by the second-acting
chamber. Occasionally, Congress uses both methods to resolve differences on a measure if, for
example, it first attempts to resolve differences through amendment exchange and then resorts to
conference.7 Although this report discusses some conference committee procedures for
comparison purposes, its main subject is the formal parliamentary steps and options associated
with an exchange of amendments between the chambers.
In both chambers, the procedures applicable to consideration of amendments from the other body
change when the chamber reaches what is known as “the stage of disagreement.” A chamber
enters the stage of disagreement by formally agreeing to a motion or a unanimous consent request
that it disagrees to the position of the other chamber, or that it insists on its own position. Nearly
all the time, however, when both chambers reach the stage of disagreement, they form a
conference committee. This report, therefore, almost exclusively addresses the procedures
available prior to the stage of disagreement.8
6 In the House, this “hook-up” procedure is generally accomplished by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules, or
the terms of a special rule. In the Senate, it is accomplished by unanimous consent.
7 Alternatively, the chambers might form a conference committee but ultimately end up resolving their differences
through amendment exchange after the conference reports in partial or full disagreement, or after the conference report
is defeated or falls on a point of order. For more information on these potential complications, see CRS Report 98-696,
Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by
Elizabeth Rybicki.
8 For information on the consideration of amendments after the stage of disagreement, which is most likely to occur
after a conference committee has reported in full or partial disagreement, see CRS Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative
Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by Elizabeth Rybicki, pp. 26-
33.
Congressional Research Service
3
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Senate Consideration of House Amendments
When the House amends a bill that has already passed the Senate, it sends its amendment(s) back
to the Senate accompanied by a written document that describes what is being transmitted. This
document is a message to the Senate, and sometimes the Senate uses the term “message” to refer
to the amendment(s) that is received from the House. The Senate will generally hold House
amendments at the desk for action by the full Senate, rather than refer them to committee.
Nothing in Senate rules requires that the Senate consider the House amendments it receives.
However, if the Senate wishes to act further on that particular bill or resolution, it must take some
action on the House amendments.
Laying House Amendments Before the Senate
Under Senate Rule VII, Paragraph 3, House amendments are “privileged for consideration” in the
Senate, which means that a Senator can request that the Presiding Officer lay the amendments
before the Senate. By long-standing custom, the majority leader usually makes motions and
requests affecting the agenda of the Senate, including those concerning House amendments.
Most of the time, the majority leader requests that the Presiding Officer lay the amendment(s)
before the Senate in the following way:9
Senator: Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House on
the bill S.____ , with the amendment(s) of the House thereto.
The Presiding Officer: The Chair lays before the Senate the amendment(s) of the House of
Representatives to S ____ .
After the House message is laid before the Senate, typically the majority leader immediately
makes a motion to dispose of the amendment(s).
On occasion, the House has sent what is effectively a
On occasion, the House has sent what is
new legislative proposal to the Senate in the form of a
effectively a new legislative proposal to the
House amendment, instead of as a House bill. House
Senate in the form of a House amendment;
amendments, unlike House bills, can be called up in the
this is sometimes done in part because
Senate without debate. To be clear, it is only the question
House amendments, unlike House bills, can
be called up in the Senate without debate.
of whether to consider the House amendment that is not
subject to debate; the question of how to dispose of the
House amendment is debatable under the regular rules of the Senate.
The ability to take up a matter without debate can potentially make a difference in the Senate
because the Senate then needs to end debate only on the main question (or questions). To bring
debate on a question to a close, the Senate may need to invoke cloture, and the process for doing
so can be time-consuming. A cloture motion is not voted on until two days of session after it is
filed. If cloture is successfully invoked by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and
sworn (60 Senators if there is no more than 1 vacancy), then consideration of the question can
9 Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, 101st Cong., 2nd sess.,
S. Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), [Hereafter Riddick’s Senate Procedure], p. 127.
Congressional Research Service
4
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
continue for up to an additional 30 hours.10 If there is opposition to calling up a bill, the Senate
might need to go through this cloture process twice: once on the motion to proceed to the bill, and
a second time on the bill itself. If the same legislative proposal is called up as a House
amendment, then those in favor of moving forward on the matter can do so more quickly because
cloture would need to be invoked, if at all, only on the question of disposing of the House
amendment.
Motions in the Senate to Dispose of House Amendments
Once the House amendment(s) are before the Senate, several debatable motions are in order.11
The basic choices before the Senate are to propose a change to the House amendment(s), agree to
the House amendment(s), or to disagree to the House amendment(s). More formally, the three
central motions to dispose of House amendments are:12
• Motion to concur in the House amendment(s) with (an) amendment(s)
• Motion to concur in the House amendment(s)
• Motion to disagree to the House amendment(s)
If the chambers have reached the stage of disagreement—meaning that the House or Senate has
already disagreed to an amendment of the other chamber or insisted on its own amendment—then
a fourth motion, to recede, might be considered. The motion to recede is used essentially to
reverse the position a chamber took previously on an amendment, and to bring the chambers
closer to agreement. The Senate could, for example, recede from its disagreement to a House
amendment and concur with the House amendment (perhaps with amendments). Or the Senate
could recede from its own amendment. After receding from its own amendment to a House
amendment, the Senate has the option of concurring in the House amendment with a different
amendment(s). The motion to recede is rarely offered in the modern Senate.
The procedures available for disposing of House amendments depend in certain respects on
whether the House has proposed a single full substitute for the Senate proposal or a series of
separate amendments to individual provisions.
Disposing of a Single House Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
The House, like the Senate, often proposes an amendment to a bill from the other chamber that
strikes all after the enacting clause (the first line of every bill that states “be it hereby enacted by
the House and Senate ... ”) and inserts a new text. Any amendment that proposes a full-text
alternative for a bill is formally called an “amendment in the nature of a substitute” or a
“complete substitute.” If the first amendment between the houses is a full-text substitute, further
amendments between the chambers also tend to propose replacing the last-proposed text in its
entirety, although this is not required.
10 For more information, see CRS Report 98-425, Invoking Cloture in the Senate, by Christopher M. Davis, and CRS
Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Richard S. Beth and Stanley Bach.
11 For a full list of available motions prior to the stage of disagreement, see Riddick’s Senate Procedure, pp. 127-128.
12 These three motions are available with the same order of precedence even if the Senate had insisted on its
amendment (thus reaching the stage of disagreement) and the House had returned the Senate amendment with a House
amendment (Riddick’s Senate Procedure, p. 129).
Congressional Research Service
5
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
If the Senate receives one amendment from the House, then the Senate can agree to one motion to
dispose of it.13 In some instances, the House amendment to a Senate bill is the result of extended
negotiations between the chambers. In this situation, the majority leader is likely to propose that
the Senate agree to the House amendment without changes, and he will do this by making a
motion to concur. He is proposing that the Senate agree to the House text because that text is the
negotiated compromise.
If the House amendment is not the result of bicameral negotiations, and instead is best viewed as
the House version of the legislation, then the majority leader might make a motion to disagree. In
the contemporary Congress, when the Senate disagrees to a House complete substitute
amendment it almost always immediately requests that a conference committee be created to
negotiate the differences.
Finally, the majority leader might make a motion that the Senate concur in the House amendment
with a further amendment. That further amendment might be the result of bicameral negotiations.
In other words, sometimes when the Senate agrees to a substitute amendment to a House
amendment, the Senate substitute amendment is the bicameral compromise. (The Senate could
also agree to a motion to concur in the House amendment with several distinct Senate
amendments to the text, instead of a full-text substitute amendment. The Senate has not chosen
this option in recent Congresses.)
All amendments in the Senate, including an amendment to a House amendment, are required
under Senate rules to be read out loud by the clerk at the time they are offered. The reading is
usually waived by unanimous consent, but
absent unanimous consent, the reading of
Limitation on the Number of Rounds of
Senate amendment(s) to a House-passed text
Amendment Exchange
has the potential to be time-consuming,
House and Senate precedents allow only two degrees of
particularly if what is being proposed is a full-
amendment, or four “rounds” of amendment exchange:
text substitute amendment.14
• The bill
The option of agreeing to a motion to concur
• The amendment(s) of the chamber that did not
originate the bill
with an amendment is not always available in
the Senate, because there is a limit to the
• The amendment(s) of the originating chamber to the
number of times the chambers can propose
amendment(s) of the other chamber (first degree)
amendments as they shuttle the bill back and
• The amendments(s) of the other chamber to the
forth between them. Under House and Senate
amendments of the originating chamber (second
precedents, the amendment of the chamber
degree)
that acts second on the bill is the text that is
In the House, these limitations can be waived by special
subject to amendment in two degrees. Thus, if
rule, suspension of the rules, or unanimous consent. In
the Senate passes a bill, and the House
the Senate, these limitations can be waived by unanimous
consent, and they do not apply if the House has already
amends it, there can be one further Senate
extended the amendment exchange to the third degree.
amendment and then one further House
13 House amendments that simply propose to insert text can be divided into separate provisions on the demand of any
Senator. A House amendment to strike out text and insert other text is not divisible, however. (Riddick’s Senate
Procedure, p. 138).
14 For example, at the end of the 110th Congress, it was reported that the majority leader declined to take up a House
amendment and offer an motion to concur with an amendment because of a threat to force the Senate amendment to be
read (Avery Palmer, “Senate Puts Off Public Lands Bill Until Next Year,” CQ Today Online News, November 17,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
6
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
amendment to that. Another way to think of this is that there can be a total of four versions: 1) the
original bill; 2) the first amendment of the other chamber; 3) the amendment of the chamber that
originated the bill; 4) the second amendment of the other chamber.
This limitation on the number of rounds of amendment exchange can be waived in the Senate by
unanimous consent, and it does not apply if the House has already extended the number of rounds
past the four allowed under chamber precedents. Thus, if the Senate receives a House amendment
in the second degree (for example, a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
amendment to a Senate-passed bill), then a motion to concur in the House amendment with an
amendment would be in order only by unanimous consent. But if the Senate receives a House
amendment that is already in the third degree (for example, House amendment to a Senate
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House-passed bill) or greater,
then unanimous consent is not necessary in the Senate to propose an amendment to the latest
House amendment.
When a motion to concur with an amendment is made, it is in order for a Senator to offer an
amendment to the motion to concur. The amendment is considered to be an amendment in the
second-degree to the amendment proposed in the original motion to concur. This second-degree
amendment is not a “round” in the amendment exchange; it is a Senate floor amendment
proposed to a Senate amendment to a House amendment. The Senate might agree to several floor
amendments to the Senate amendment to the House amendment. When floor consideration is
complete, however, the Senate will vote on the motion to concur with an amendment as it may
have been amended. If the Senate agrees to the motion, it then sends to the House a single Senate
amendment that incorporates all the changes to it that were agreed to by the Senate during floor
consideration of the motion.
Disposing of Multiple House Amendments
From time to time, the House will send multiple amendments to the Senate. In this situation, the
Senate must consider House amendments in the order that they affect the Senate text.15 The
Senate must act on each House amendment, and for this purpose the same three motions
identified above are in order.16 The Senate, however, does not necessarily need to agree to a
separate motion to dispose of each amendment. Instead, the Senate can agree to one motion to
dispose of several House amendments, as long as the Senate is agreeing to dispose of them in all
the same way.
For example, if the House were to send two amendments to the Senate, then the majority leader
could make a single, debatable motion to concur in both of the House amendments. If he wished
15 For example, the House sent two amendments, numbered 1 and 2, to a Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 in the 110th
Congress. The Senate first considered House Amendment No. 2 because it replaced text on pages 1 through 59 of the
Senate amendment. House Amendment No. 1 inserted text on page 60. (Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154
(May 20, 2008) p. S4460 and (May 22, 2008), p. S4741.) The Senate can modify the order of consideration of House
amendments by unanimous consent.
16 Motions to strike are not amendable, and therefore the motion to concur with an amendment is not available if the
House proposes an amendment to simply strike a portion of a Senate bill or amendment. In one recent instance, the
House amended a Senate amendment to strike by agreeing to a special rule reported by the Rules Committee that
provided for a new section to be inserted. The Senate, however, did not act on this House amendment; the House later
agreed to insert the same text to a Senate amendment to a different House-passed bill. (See proceedings on H.R. 1035
and H.R. 1299, 111th Congress.)
Congressional Research Service
7
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
to propose that the Senate concur in one amendment and disagree to the other, however, then it
would be necessary to make two separate, debatable motions. Under Senate Rule XXII, cloture
can only be filed on a pending question. As a result, it might be necessary for the majority leader
to file cloture multiple times (that is, separate efforts in relation to each of several House
amendments).
In a situation where the Senate is considering each House amendment separately, the Senate will
not cast a final vote on the package of House amendments at the end of consideration. This is true
even though, in some cases, Members, staff, and the public might conceive of the multiple House
amendments as a single policy proposal. The Senate at this stage of the legislative process has
already passed the bill. It does not vote again on the bill, only on any remaining matters in
disagreement, which in this situation are the House amendments.
The limitation on the number of rounds of amendment still applies in a situation in which the
Senate must dispose of multiple House amendments. One additional restriction might arise when
the Senate is considering a House amendment that is not a full-text substitute. The Senate cannot
change text that both chambers have agreed to.17 For example, if the Senate passed a bill with
three titles, and the House messaged to the Senate two amendments, one that replaced Title 1 and
one that replaced Title 3, then the two chambers have technically both agreed to Title 2. The
House, after all, concurred in the Senate bill with amendments. The Senate could, in this
situation, consider a further amendment to the House amendment to Title 1 or to Title 3, but it
could not entertain motions concerning Title 2.
“Filling the Tree” on a Motion to Dispose of House Amendments
Very often, particularly in situations when the procedures have the potential to become
complicated, the Senate considers House amendments under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement. Under these agreements, all Senators agree to set aside the regular rules in favor of an
arrangement that can specify exactly what motions and amendments will be offered and by
whom, as well as when votes are likely to occur.
In the absence of such a unanimous consent agreement, it is possible for several motions to be
pending at one time to dispose of a single House amendment. This situation becomes possible
through the operation of precedence. A motion can be understood to have precedence over
another if (1) it may be offered while the other is pending; and (2) it is disposed of first. The
available motions, in order of precedence are: to concur with an amendment, to concur, and to
disagree. Thus, with a motion to disagree pending, a motion to concur and a motion to concur
with an amendment could be offered and would be voted on first. In addition, any motion to
concur with an amendment is itself subject to amendment.
The precedence of motions can also prevent action. Once one motion is offered, the other motions
of lower precedence may not be offered until the Senate votes on or otherwise deals with the
pending motion. Therefore, if a motion to concur with an amendment were pending, neither a
motion to concur nor a motion to disagree could be offered until the Senate disposed of the
motion to concur with an amendment.
17 Riddick’s Senate Procedure, pp. 130-131.
Congressional Research Service
8
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
In recent Congresses, the Senate majority leader has used his
preferential recognition to offer all the available motions to
The procedural effect of “filling the
dispose of a House amendment.18 This process has been
tree” is that no Senator can propose an
referred to as “filling the tree.” The procedural effect of
alternative method of acting on the
filling the tree—or offering all of the amendatory motions
House amendments until the Senate
disposes of (or lays aside by unanimous
available in a particular parliamentary situation—is that no
consent) one of the pending motions.
Senator can propose an alternative method of acting on the
House amendments until the Senate disposes of (or lays
aside by unanimous consent) one of the pending motions.
Filling the tree does not affect the right of Senators to debate the matter at length. It does not,
therefore, bring the Senate any closer to final disposition of the House amendments. If, however,
the majority leader can build a coalition of at least 60 Senators (assuming no more than one
vacancy in the Senate) in order to invoke cloture, then he can fill the tree to block other Senators
from having an opportunity to propose other ways of disposing of House amendments, including
perhaps the opportunity to propose Senate amendments to the House amendments prior to Senate
disposition of the House amendments.
Motions Necessary to “Fill the Tree”
The number of motions that must be offered to “fill the tree” depends on what motion to dispose
of a House amendment is offered first. Typically, the first motion that is offered by the majority
leader is the one he wants the Senate to approve. If, for example, the majority leader wishes to
propose that the Senate agree to a House amendment with changes that resulted from bicameral
negotiations, the first motion he might offer is the motion to concur with an amendment. This
motion has the highest precedence of the three motions to dispose of House amendments, but it is
subject to amendment. To prevent other Senators from offering an amendment, the majority
leader could offer a perfecting amendment to the amendment proposed in the motion to concur.
This second-degree perfecting amendment could be any amendment that proposed to insert text,
strike text, or replace a portion of the text of the amendment. Often, the majority leader proposes
an amendment with minimal impact, such as changing the enactment date of the legislation by
one day.
If the goal, however, is to propose that the Senate agree to the House amendment, perhaps
because the language of the House amendment actually reflects a negotiated bicameral
compromise, then the motion to concur must be offered first. In recent Congresses, the majority
leader has typically offered three motions to fill this tree: 1) the motion to concur in the House
amendment; 2) the motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment, (a motion that
would be in order with the straight motion to concur pending); and 3) a perfecting amendment to
the amendment proposed in the motion to concur. Similarly, if the Majority Leader proposes that
the Senate disagree to a House amendment, then to fill the tree he must also offer a motion to
concur with an amendment, and a perfecting amendment to that.
18 For example, in the 109th Congress, the majority leader offered multiple motions with respect to the disposition of
amendments between the houses on the bills H.R. 6111 and S. 403. In the 110th Congress, the majority leader offered
multiple motions with respect to the disposition of amendments between the houses on the bills H.R. 6, H.R. 976, H.R.
2095, H.R. 2638, H.R. 2642, H.R. 3221, and S. 1. In most of these instances, no Senator made a motion to refer with
instructions.
Congressional Research Service
9
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
With any of the motions to dispose of House amendments pending, a Senator could offer a
motion to refer the House amendments to a Senate committee.19 Motions to refer can contain
instructions to the committee, but these instructions are not binding. For example, a Senator could
propose that the House amendments be referred to a committee for further examination of a
specific subject. If the motion to refer with instructions were agreed to, however, the committee
would have the authority to decide what further action, if any, it would take. The motion to refer
with instructions does provide a potential opportunity for Senators to bring a policy subject before
the Senate. The majority leader could choose to offer all the available motions to dispose of the
House amendments, as well as a motion to refer with instructions (and amendments to the
instructions) in order to preclude such opportunities.20 Furthermore, if the majority leader offers
all the available motions to dispose of a House amendment, files cloture, and then makes a
motion to proceed to something else, another Senator could not, at that time, make a motion to
refer because the Senate had moved on to another matter. A Senator can only make a motion to
refer a matter that is before the Senate. Once cloture is invoked, any pending motion to refer
would fall.
“Filling the Tree” and Cloture
When the Majority Leader fills the tree on a motion dispose of a House amendment, to end
consideration of the motions it is not necessary to file cloture on each pending motion separately.
Instead, the Senate only needs to invoke cloture on the motion of lowest precedence (which
generally is the motion the Majority Leader is proposing the Senate approve). If the Senate agrees
to invoke cloture on a motion to disagree to the House amendments, then all other pending
motions of a higher precedence fall.21 This is because the alternative, to consider and vote on the
motions of higher precedence first, would contradict the language of the cloture rule which states
that the question on which cloture is invoked shall be the business of the Senate “to the exclusion
of all other business until disposed of” (Senate Rule XXII).
If cloture is invoked on a motion to concur, however, then the higher-precedence motion to
concur with an amendment (and any pending amendment to that) remains pending.22 At the end
of the maximum 30 hours of debate, if all three motions were still pending, the votes would occur
first on the second-degree amendment to the motion to concur with an amendment, then on the
motion to concur with an amendment, and then on the motion to concur. If the motion to concur
with an amendment were agreed to, then the straight motion to concur would presumably then
fall, since the Senate had already agreed to concur with an amendment. Because the motions
offered to “fill the tree” typically propose simply to alter the enactment date, however, the Senate
usually agrees that the two other amendatory motions be considered withdrawn.
19 Riddick’s Senate Procedure, p. 128. In the 110th Congress, with a motion to concur with an amendment and a
perfecting amendment to that pending, Senator Bunning offered a motion to refer a House amendment with instructions
under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement (Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (June 19, 2008), p.
S5814).
20 In several instances in the 110th Congress, the majority leader or his designee asked and received unanimous consent
that no motions to refer be in order during consideration of the House message (Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 154 (June 19, 2008), p. S5814; (September 26, 2008), S9851; (September 27, 2008), S10019).
21 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (July 10, 2008), p. S6521.
22 If cloture is invoked on a motion to concur in a House amendment, then presumably under the terms of Rule XXII
any motion to concur with an amendment would have to be germane to the amendment(s) between the Houses or the
underlying bill.
Congressional Research Service
10
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
If the Senate has multiple House amendments to consider, and the Majority Leader makes
separate motions to dispose of the House amendments, then to preclude other Senators from
proposing alternative actions he might fill the tree in relation to each motion, and then must file
cloture on each motion separately. The process of considering House amendments therefore has
the potential to be time consuming even if 60 Senators (assuming no more than 1 vacancy) are in
favor of ending debate on every motion.
Comparison of Amendment Exchange and Conference Committee
Procedures in the Senate
Consideration of a conference report and consideration of amendments between the houses are
similar in certain respects. Conference reports are called up without debate, and they cannot be
amended. House amendments are called up without debate, and if the majority leader then “fills
the tree,” amendments are precluded (at least temporarily). Furthermore, both conference reports
and House amendments are debatable under the regular rules of the Senate. This means that
regardless of the form in which the bicameral compromise is brought before the Senate, it might
be necessary to secure the support of 60 Senators (assuming no more than 1 vacancy) to end
debate and bring the Senate to a vote.23
There are, however, important procedural distinctions between conference committee and
amendment exchange procedures (See Table 1). Only conference committees require formal
action to initiate their creation. These actions are generally taken by unanimous consent. In the
absence of unanimous consent, arranging to send a measure to conference committee has the
potential to be very time-consuming. Three debatable motions must be separately considered and
agreed to, and Senators can also offer any number of debatable motions to instruct conferees.24
Senators sometimes object, or threaten to object, to unanimous consent requests to take the
actions necessary to send a bill to conference expeditiously. In some cases, Senate leadership has
responded to such objections by attempting to resolve the bicameral differences through
amendments between the houses instead of conference committee.
Amendments between the houses also are not subject to the same constraints as conference
reports with regard to their content.25 In a situation where a negotiated bicameral compromise is
being considered as an amendment between the houses, the compromise might not be subject to
points of order that it would have been subject to if presented as a conference report. For
example, implicit in the rules of both chambers is the requirement that conferees resolve the
differences committed to them by reaching agreements within what is known as “the scope of the
differences” between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Rulings and practices of the
Senate allow matter in a conference report to be considered as within the scope of the differences
as long as it is reasonably related to the matter sent to conference in either the House or Senate
versions of the legislation. Senate Rule XXVIII restricting the content of a bicameral compromise
23 Some measures, most prominently budget resolutions and budget reconciliation bills, are considered under special
expedited procedures that preclude extended debate on conference reports and amendments between the houses. For
more information, see CRS Report 98-511, Consideration of the Budget Resolution, by Bill Heniff Jr., and CRS Report
RL33030, The Budget Reconciliation Process: House and Senate Procedures, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr., pp.
79-84.
24 For more information, see CRS Report RS20454, Going to Conference in the Senate, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
25 For more information, see CRS Report RS22733, Senate Rules Restricting the Content of Conference Reports, by
Elizabeth Rybicki.
Congressional Research Service
11
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
does not apply to amendments between the houses. Furthermore, in the 110th Congress, the Senate
changed the manner of disposing of points of order raised under this long-standing rule,
effectively providing an opportunity for Senators to vote on whether to waive the rule and permit
the inclusion of provisions not sufficiently related to the matter committed to conference. The
opportunity for a separate vote in relation to matter potentially outside of scope does not exist
when considering a House amendment because the scope requirement does not apply.
Table 1. Amendment Exchange and Conference Committees in the Senate: A Brief
Comparison of Key Procedures
Conference Report
Amendment Exchange
Effectively need unanimous consent to send a measure
No floor action is necessary to begin informal
to conference in the Senate
bicameral negotiations that can result in a proposal to
be presented as an amendment between the Houses
Conferees are formal y appointed and meet publicly at
Negotiators are not formally identified
least once
Conference reports are subject to content restrictions, Amendments between the houses are not subject to
including the requirement that any new matter be
the same content restrictions as conference reports
reasonable related to the matter submitted to
conference
Joint explanatory statements, which describe the
Joint explanatory statements are not required for an
positions of each chamber and the compromises
amendment exchange, although sometimes similar
reached, are required to accompany conference
documents are submitted for printing in the
reports
Congressional Record
Conference reports must be available to Members of
No availability requirement for House amendments
Congress and the general public at least 48 hours
before the vote
Conference reports are not required to be read if they
House amendments are not required to be read, but
are available in the Senate
any Senate amendment offered to the House
amendment must be read in full unless reading is
waived by unanimous consent
Conference reports are privileged for consideration in
House amendments are privileged for consideration in
the Senate, which means they can be called up without
the Senate, which means they can be called up without
debate
debate
Conference reports cannot be amended
House amendments can be amended; majority leader
can “fill the tree” to temporarily block amendments
Conference report is a single package
House might send several House amendments to the
Senate, potentially necessitating separate consideration
and disposition of each amendment
Conference report general y debated under the regular House amendments generally debated under the
rules of the Senate, which means it might be necessary
regular rules of the Senate, which means it might be
to invoke cloture on the report to end debate
necessary to invoke cloture in connection with each
House amendment to end debate
Note: This table briefly identifies some of the procedural differences between conference committee and
amendment exchange procedures in the Senate that are discussed more ful y (and with references to relevant
standing rules, standing orders, and precedents) in the text of this report.
Bicameral meetings and conversations among Senators, Representatives, and staff from the
relevant committees of jurisdiction can be substantively similar regardless of whether the
resulting compromise is embodied in an amendment between the houses or a conference report.
Congressional Research Service
12
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Only in cases in which a conference committee is appointed, however, will there be any formal
meeting of the conference because the House has interpreted its rules to require at least one public
meeting. In practice, most bicameral negotiations take place informally, and the conference
committee may hold no more than one formal public meeting where Senators and Representatives
typically make statements and perhaps discuss any major items in disagreement. In contrast,
discussions that can result in a compromise presented as an amendment between the houses are
never required to be public; in fact, unlike conference committees, the negotiators are never
formally identified.
The documentation required at the conclusion of negotiations is another distinction between the
two methods of resolving differences. Under Senate rules, every conference report must be
accompanied by a joint explanatory statement, often called the managers’ statement, which
explains the position of each chamber and the recommendations of the conference committee on
the issues in disagreement (Senate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 6). The requirement to produce this
document does not apply in an amendment exchange, although on some occasions in the 110th
Congress committees prepared text similar to a managers’ statement and submitted it for printing
in the Congressional Record.26 A majority of Senate conferees and a majority of House conferees
must sign both the conference report and the joint explanatory statement. No such requirement
applies to a compromise considered as an amendment between the houses.
Senate rules further require that a conference report, but not a House amendment, be made
available to Members and the general public on a Congressional, Library of Congress, or
Government Printing Office website 48 hours before the vote on the report (Senate Rule XXVIII,
paragraph 9). This availability requirement can be waived by three-fifths of Senators duly chosen
and sworn (60 Senators if there is no more than 1 vacancy). It can also be waived by joint
agreement of the Majority and Minority Leader in the case of a significant disruption to Senate
facilities or the availability of the internet. Senate Rule XXVIII, Paragraph 1, also requires that a
conference report must be “available on each Senator’s desk” before the Senate may consider it, a
requirement that is usually met by the printing of the conference report in the Congressional
Record and its distribution. If the report is not yet printed in the Congressional Record, then a
copy of the report itself is placed on Senators’ desks.
Some requirements under the rules can apply to amendment exchange procedures but not to
conference reports. Under a standing order of the Senate, conference reports are not required to
be read if they are available in the Senate.27 The text of a House amendment is also not read under
Senate precedents. If a Senator proposes the chamber concur in the House amendment with an
amendment, however, then the reading of that amendment could be waived only by unanimous
consent.
The final key procedural distinction is that amendment exchange is more likely to involve
consideration of multiple questions. In the contemporary Congress, conference committee reports
nearly always report in full agreement.28 The Senate therefore only takes a single action: approval
26 See, for example, the section-by-section analysis submitted for printing by unanimous consent in relation to the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1 in the 110th Congress (Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
153 (August 2, 2007), pp. S10708-S10714.
27 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Manual Containing the Standing Rules,
Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, prepared by Matthew McGowan
Under the Direction of Howard Gantman, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 110-1 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 127.
28 If the chambers have arranged to go to conference on a bill and multiple second-acting-chamber amendments, then it
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
of disapproval of the conference report. In contrast, if the House sends multiple amendments to
the Senate, it will not necessarily be possible for the Senate to take a single action to resolve
differences with the House.
It bears emphasizing that these procedural differences are not the only factors that influence the
decision on how to resolve differences between the chambers. Other differences between the two
methods abound, and strategic decisions about how to resolve matters with the House take into
account timing, the nature of policy disagreements, and the roles of likely negotiators, among
many other factors. For more information on the larger decision-making context, see CRS Report
RL34611, Whither the Role of Conference Committees: An Analysis, especially pp. 23-31.
House Consideration of Senate Amendments
When the House receives amendments from the Senate, the amendments are usually held at the
Speaker’s table for later consideration by the full House. The Speaker could refer Senate
amendments to the committee or committees of jurisdiction, but she is likely to do so only if the
Senate proposal is on a subject that has not already been considered by the House committee of
jurisdiction.
If the House wishes to continue the legislative process on a particular measure, when the House
receives a Senate amendment(s) to the measure, it must agree to take some action on the
amendment(s). Generally speaking, the options for action are the same as those that the Senate
can take on House amendments: propose a change to the amendment(s); agree to the
amendment(s); or disagree to the amendment(s). More formally, the House can agree to a motion
• to concur in the Senate amendment(s) with (an) amendment(s),
• to concur in the Senate amendment(s), or
• to disagree to the Senate amendment(s).
If the chambers have already reached the stage of disagreement, meaning that one chamber has
already disagreed to an amendment of the other or insisted on its own position, then the House
can also agree to a motion to recede from a position previously taken. For example, the House
can recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, or it can recede from its own
amendment that the Senate has disagreed to.
The limitation on the number of times the chambers can pass a bill back and forth described
earlier applies to the House as well as the Senate. Essentially, after the second-acting chamber
amends a bill initially passed by the other, that amendment can be amended in two degrees: once
more by the originating chamber and then once more by the second-acting chamber. A majority of
the House can override this practice, however, and extend the amendment exchange further.
(...continued)
is possible (but not common) for the conference committee to report in partial disagreement. In this situation, there
would be an opportunity to vote on the conference report and to act on any remaining amendments on which the
chambers did not resolve their differences. For more information, see CRS Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative
Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by Elizabeth Rybicki, pp. 26-
32.
Congressional Research Service
14
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Under most circumstances, Senate amendments are not privileged for consideration in the House,
which means a Member cannot interrupt the regular order of business to make motions for their
disposition.29 Furthermore, under the regular rules of the House, any House amendments offered
to Senate amendments are required to be germane. Typically, the House disposes of Senate
amendments through one of the expedited processes described below: a special rule reported by
the Committee on Rules, a motion to suspend the rules, or, less frequently, by unanimous consent.
In recent Congresses, the most common method of disposition was through suspension of the
rules, although in the 110th Congress the use of special rules to dispose of Senate amendments
increased.30
Rules Committee: Calling Up and Disposing of
Senate Amendments
A majority of the House can set the terms for consideration of a Senate amendment by agreeing to
a privileged resolution reported by the Rules Committee.31 The Rules Committee might report a
special rule that makes it in order at any time to take up a Senate amendment and dispose of it,
usually by agreeing either to a motion to concur, or to a motion to concur with an amendment.
The rule would be required to lie over for one legislative day under House Rule XIII, clause 6(a),
unless the House had previously adopted a waiver of this requirement (or the rule was adopted by
a two-thirds majority).32
Special rules for considering motions to dispose of Senate amendments typically provide for a
certain amount of time for debate of the motion, equally divided between a proponent and
opponent. Most of the time, the rule does not provide an opportunity for Members to offer
amendments to the Senate amendment on the floor. Any preferential or secondary motions, such
as a motion to refer the Senate amendment, are also usually precluded. Typically, the House first
considers the special rule and then, if the rule is adopted, considers the motion to dispose of the
Senate amendment.
As an alternative to a special rule providing for the consideration of a motion to dispose of Senate
amendments, the Rules Committee might instead report a rule that provides that when the rule is
agreed to, the motion to dispose of the Senate amendment also be considered agreed to. These so-
called “self-executing” or “hereby” rules are occasionally used to dispose of Senate amendments
because they eliminate the need for separate consideration of a motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment.33 Most often, self-executing rules concerning Senate amendments also provide for
the formation of a conference committee.
29 Senate amendments are privileged in the House only in the unlikely event that they are not required to be considered
in the Committee of the Whole; House rules require revenue, appropriations, and authorization measures to be first
considered in the Committee of the Whole (House Rule XVIII, clause 3). In addition, the motion to disagree and go to
conference is privileged if authorized by the committee of jurisdiction. Furthermore, after the stage of disagreement,
motions to dispose of Senate amendments are privileged; however, even in this situation the House is likely to consider
amendments under the terms of a special rule, a unanimous consent agreement, or by suspension of the rules.
30 See Table A-2 in the Appendix.
31 For more information, see CRS Report 98-354, How Special Rules Regulate Calling up Measures for Consideration
in the House, by Richard S. Beth.
32 For more information, see CRS Report RS22015, Availability of Legislative Measures in the House of
Representatives (The “Three-Day Rule”), by Elizabeth Rybicki.
33 House Practice, pp. 837-838.
Congressional Research Service
15
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Special rules disposing of Senate amendments may provide for the equivalent of a joint
explanatory statement, or statement of managers, that are required to accompany conference
committee reports.34 In a recent instance, a rule concerning the disposition of Senate amendments
provided the Chair of the Appropriations Committee the authority to submit for printing in the
Congressional Record any statement explaining the content of the House amendments to the
Senate amendment. The inserted statement described the content of the House amendments in
plain language and resembled a joint explanatory statement.35 If the special rule had not included
the authority to insert the statement, the floor manager could have requested unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Record.
Motion to Recommit Usually Not Allowed
In contrast to the initial consideration of a bill or joint resolution under the terms of a special
rule, consideration of Senate amendments is unlikely to include an opportunity for a member of
the minority party to offer a motion to recommit (or to commit, if the matter had not already been
before the committee).36 When the House first considers a bill or joint resolution under a special
rule, a member of the minority party always has
the opportunity to offer this motion. The Rules
In contrast to the initial consideration of a bill or joint
Committee is prevented by House Rule XIII,
resolution, consideration of Senate amendments is
clause 6, from reporting a special rule that
unlikely to include an opportunity for a member of the
would not allow such a motion to recommit or
minority party to offer a motion to recommit.
commit.
The protection afforded to the motion under Rule XIII, however, applies only to bills and joint
resolutions on initial passage. It does not apply, therefore, to motions to dispose of Senate
amendments. In other words, nothing in House rules prevents the Rules Committee from
reporting a special rule for the disposition of the Senate amendment that has the effect of
precluding a motion to recommit.37
34 For more information on joint explanatory statements, see CRS Report 98-382, Conference Reports and Joint
Explanatory Statements, by Christopher M. Davis.
35 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (May 15, 2008), pp. H3953-H4036.
36 Under clause 2 of House Rule XIX, one motion is in order to recommit or commit a measure after the House has
ordered the previous question on it and before the vote on passing it. The motion can contain instructions that, if
adopted, have the effect of bringing an amendment to the bill immediately before the House. The Speaker grants
preference in recognition to a member of the minority party to offer the motion. For more information on the motion to
recommit, see CRS Report 98-383, Motions to Recommit in the House, by Betsy Palmer.
37 Under the standing rules of the House a motion to commit Senate amendments is in order prior to the stage of
disagreement (U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the
United States, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H.Doc. 110-162, 110th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2009)
(hereafter House Rules and Manual), p.796.
Congressional Research Service
16
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Considering Multiple House Amendments to a Senate Amendment
If the House is considering a motion to concur
in a Senate amendment with several
If the House is agreeing to several amendments to a
Senate amendment, there will not necessarily be a
amendments, separate votes might be held on
single vote to approve the entire package of House
each House amendment. There is no need for a
amendments. The House is not voting to pass the bill; it
single vote to approve the entire package of
has already done that in an earlier “round.” Instead, it is
House amendments. The House has already, in
voting on accepting proposed changes to a measure
a previous “round” of the amendment
that has already passed both the House and Senate.
exchange, agreed to the bill as a whole; at this
stage, accordingly, it need only agree to any changes.
As a result, the amendment exchange procedure, in comparison to the consideration of either a
new bill or a conference report, provides additional options for structuring votes in the House. In
the case study described in the last section of this report, the House agreed to three separate
amendments to a Senate complete substitute amendment to H.R. 3221: one amendment concerned
matters within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee; one amendment concerned
matters within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee; and the final amendment was a
bipartisan proposal to preempt state housing foreclosure laws. In the case of H.R. 3221, different
committees had worked on different amendments to the Senate amendment.
In another example from the 110th Congress, the House agreed to two separate amendments to a
Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The first
amendment provided funding for various government agencies and programs. The second
amendment included funding requested by the President for the Department of Defense, as well
as State and Foreign Operations appropriations and funds for the Gulf Coast recovery. The second
amendment was generally described as funding for the Iraq War, and it included provisions
setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government that were different from the benchmarks that had
been passed in an earlier version of the legislation that was vetoed by the President.38 The House
agreed to the first amendment by a vote of 348-73, and to the second amendment by 280-142.39
Considering two amendments to the Senate-approved complete substitute allowed these issues to
be voted on separately, allowing the leadership in the House to build separate majorities for the
two amendments.
The House also agreed to two amendments to a Senate amendment to H.R. 2764. The first
amendment was a consolidated appropriations bill for FY2008.40 The second amendment
provided funding for operations in Afghanistan, but prohibited those funds from being used in
Iraq. This way of structuring the proceedings permitted the issue of war funding to be considered
38 The summary of the House amendments to the Senate amendment is based on description provided in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Rules, Providing for the Consideration of the Senate Amendment to the Bill (H.R. 2206), 110th
Cong., 1st sess., May 24, 2007, 110-168 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 3. See also Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 153 (May 24, 2007), pp. H5805-H5910.
39 For accounts of the consideration of these amendments, see Liriel Higa, “War Funding Bill Sent to Senate for Final
Passage,” CQ Today Online News, May 24, 2007 and John M. Donnelly and Susan Ferrechio, “House GOP Support
Needed to Pass Iraq Funding Bill,” CQ Today Online News, May 23, 2007.
40 For debate regarding this process of bringing the consolidated appropriations bill before the House, see “Providing
for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764, The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008),” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 153 (December 17, 2007), pp. H15516-H15525.
Congressional Research Service
17
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
separately from the issue of general funding for the government.41 In yet a fourth example from
the 110th Congress, the House considered three amendments to a Senate complete substitute
amendment to H.R. 2642. Once again, the consideration of multiple amendments allowed for
separate votes on distinct issues. The first amendment provided funding for the Department of
Defense; the second amendment concerned Iraq war policy, including a provision concerning
troop redeployment from Iraq; and the third amendment provided additional funding for
government programs, including, for example, veterans’ education benefits, food assistance, and
military construction.42
In all four of the above identified cases, the special rule provided for a limited time for debate of
the motion to concur with several amendments and precluded all other motions—but provided
that the votes be taken separately on each House amendment. More specifically, each special rule
provided for one motion to concur with amendments, and then the question of adopting that
motion was divided among each of the amendments.43 In one instance, the special rule provided
that if the House agreed to both amendments, then they would be engrossed as a single
amendment for transmission to the Senate. Engrossment is the process, undertaken by the House
clerks, of preparing a final certified version of a matter that has been approved by the chamber.44
The effect of this provision of the rule was that the Senate received, for its consideration, not two
House amendments, but one. This allowed the Senate to take a single action, instead of
considering separate motions to dispose of separate House amendments.
Suspending the Rules to Dispose of Senate Amendments
The House also has the option of agreeing to suspend the rules to dispose of Senate amendments.
A motion to suspend the rules requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, so it is a procedural option
generally used only when a large majority of the House favors the proposed action. Under this
procedure, the House casts just one vote to suspend the rules and agree to one of the motions for
disposing of the Senate amendment. For example, the House can consider one motion to suspend
the rules and agree to a Senate amendment.
Motions to suspend the rules are debated for no more than forty minutes. No point of order can be
made because the motion is proposing to suspend any rule that would interfere with its approval.
Once the motion to suspend the rules is made, no further motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment(s) is in order. A motion to commit or recommit is also not in order. The motion to
suspend the rules is privileged under House rules only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays,
although special rules occasionally provide for consideration of motions to suspend the rules on
other days of the week.
41 Josh Rogin, “Senate Up Next as House Sends Over Omnibus,” CQ Today Online News, December 17, 2007.
42 The summary of the House amendments to the Senate amendment is based on description provided in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Rules, Providing for the Consideration of the Senate Amendment to the Bill (H.R. 2642), 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., May 14, 2008, 110-636 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 3-4.
43 See, in the 110th Congress, H.Res. 438 for the consideration of House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2206; H.Res. 878 for the consideration of House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764; H.Res. 1175 for
the consideration of House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221; and H.Res. 1197 for the consideration
of House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642.
44 For more information, see William Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2003) (hereafter cited as House Practice), pp. 759-761
and CRS Report 98-826, Engrossment, Enrollment, and Presentation of Legislation, by R. Eric Petersen.
Congressional Research Service
18
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Usually when the House uses the suspension process to dispose of Senate amendments, it
suspends the rules and concurs in an amendment of the Senate. The House could agree to suspend
the rules and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment. If that motion were made, the
House amendment would be read in full by the clerk after the suspension motion was agreed to.
For that reason, if the suspension process were used for this purpose, the House might be more
likely to agree to a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution that states that, upon
adoption of the resolution, the Senate amendment be agreed to with the amendment printed in the
text of the resolution.45
Unanimous Consent
The House might also agree to Senate amendments by unanimous consent, particularly at the end
of a session when time constraints make this a more desirable option than suspension of the rules.
The chair of the committee of jurisdiction often asks unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker’s table the bill and Senate amendment(s), and, if there is no objection, the manager then
makes a motion to concur in the amendment(s) which can be debated under the hour rule and
voted upon. Alternatively, the floor manager might make one unanimous consent request to take
the bill from the Speaker’s table and concur in the Senate amendments. The request is not
debatable, and a vote is not necessary. On occasion, the House enters into a unanimous consent
agreement that sets a total time for debate of the motion to concur, and typically provides that the
time be equally divided and controlled.
Any unanimous consent request would be subject to the Speaker’s guidelines for recognition laid
out at the start of each Congress.46 The effective result of these guidelines is that a Representative
will only be recognized to make a unanimous consent request to dispose of Senate amendments
after clearing the consent request with the majority and minority floor leadership and the chair
and ranking member of the committee(s) of jurisdiction. In practice, it is the chair of the
committee of jurisdiction, or the chair’s designee, who makes the unanimous consent request.
Comparison of Amendment Exchange and Conference Committee
Procedures in the House
Acting on Senate amendments to a House bill (or to a House amendment) is a stage of the
legislative process distinct from the initial passage of the measure. As discussed at length above,
if the House acts on a Senate amendment, instead of acting on a bill or joint resolution that has
not yet passed the House, then 1) the motion to recommit is less likely to be in order and 2) there
will not necessarily be a single vote in relation to the Senate amendment, because the House
proposal might be considered as separate amendments to the Senate amendment.
45 Deschler’s [and Deschler-Brown] Precedents of the House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. 94-661
(Washington: GPO, 1977) (hereafter Deschler), ch. 32, sec. 5.22, p. 73.
46 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (January 6, 2009), p. H22; House Rules and Manual, sec. 956, pp. 744-
745.
Congressional Research Service
19
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Under the standing rules of the House, amendment exchange is different in many respects from
conference committee procedures. In the contemporary Congress, however, conference
committee reports are almost always considered
under a special rule that waives all points of
In the contemporary Congress, both conference
order that could be raised against the report or
reports and amendments between the houses are
against its consideration. As a result, in practice,
often considered under the terms of a special rule
the consideration of a conference report and the
reported by the Rules Committee. As a result, in
practice, the consideration of a conference report and
consideration of amendments between the houses
the consideration of amendments between the houses
can be quite similar. For example, under the
can be quite similar in many respects.
standing rules, bicameral compromises reported
by a conference committee are required to
remain within the scope of the differences between the House and Senate; 47 amendments between
the houses are not subject to these scope requirements. However, if agreed to by a majority of the
House, the special rule for the consideration of a conference report would likely protect the
conference report from a point of order. Furthermore, while conference reports (but not Senate
amendments) are required to be available under House Rule XXII, clause 8, for three days prior
to their consideration, in practice the special rule can waive this availability requirement. Special
rules can also modify the manner in which amendments between the houses are considered. For
example, under the standing rules conference reports cannot be amended, and Senate amendments
can be amended; in practice, however, the special rule for the consideration of a Senate
amendment would likely prevent amendments from being offered from the floor.
Nevertheless, procedural distinctions do remain between conference committee procedures and
amendments between the houses. Perhaps most significantly, the process for arranging a formal
conference committee in the House includes an opportunity for a member of the minority party to
offer a motion to instruct conferees. Such motions typically direct the House conferees to take a
position on a particular issue in disagreement between the chambers. The motion to instruct is not
binding on the conferees; in other words, even if the conferees report contrary to the instructions,
the report will not be subject to a point of order. Despite this limitation, motions to instruct are
sometimes viewed as an opportunity for a member of the minority party to present a view on a
policy issue of his or her choosing. 48 If the chambers resolve their differences through
amendment exchange, instead of conference committee, then there is no opportunity to offer a
motion to instruct conferees.
Furthermore, under clause 12 of House Rule XXII, conference committees meetings are required
to be open to the public, and the House has interpreted this rule to require that at least one public
meeting of the conference committee be held after conferees are formally appointed.49 The same
clause states that the chair of the House delegation “should endeavor to ensure” that all members
of the conference committee be given notice of all meetings and that all provisions in
disagreement between the chambers will be open to discussion. The rule also guarantees
managers access to a complete copy of the conference agreement at a unitary time and place for
the collection of signatures. Although these requirements can be waived by special rule, generally
47 For more information, see CRS Report RS20219, House Conferees: Restrictions on Their Authority, by Richard S.
Beth, and House Practice, pp. 337-339.
48 It is not in order, however, to instruct House conferees to reach agreement that is not within their authority. For more
information, see CRS Report RS20219, House Conferees: Restrictions on Their Authority, by Richard S. Beth and CRS
Report 98-381, Instructing House Conferees, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
49 A conference report would be subject to a point of order if a formal meeting of the appointed conferees was not held
in open session. House Manual, sec. 1093, p. 917.
Congressional Research Service
20
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
conference committees do hold at least one public meeting and abide by these guidelines. No
such requirements apply to negotiation meetings that result in a compromise embodied in an
amendment between the houses.
The appointment of a formal conference committee can facilitate a structured division of labor in
negotiations. The Speaker can appoint conferees for a limited purpose; for example, only for
consideration of a single title of the bill in conference. These appointments are more likely when
the matters in conference fall under the jurisdiction of multiple standing committees, and the
Speaker appoints Representatives from the various committees to negotiate over matters within
their respective jurisdictions. A conference committee might choose to form structured
subconferences to consider the matters under its jurisdiction, although generally negotiations
among conferees are less structured. In any case, the House requires that, for every portion of the
conference report that a distinct group of conferees is appointed to consider, a majority of the
Representatives in that group (and a majority of Senators in that group) sign the report. Under this
requirement, the House counts the signatures of limited-purpose conferees only for those matters
within their respectively assigned authorities.50 In this way, the specific appointments and
signature requirement can give some guidance to negotiators about the portion of the compromise
under their responsibility. Because bicameral negotiations in an amendment exchange situation
are by definition informal, and no signatures are collected, similar opportunities to enforce
structure on the negotiations do not exist.
The documentation required at the conclusion of negotiations is another distinction between the
two methods of resolving differences. Under House rules, every conference report must be
accompanied by a joint explanatory statement, often called the managers’ statement, which
explains the position of each chamber and the recommendations of the conference committee on
the issues in disagreement (House Rule XXII, clause 7). The requirement to produce this
document does not apply in an amendment exchange, although on some occasions in the 110th
Congress, committees prepared text similar to a managers’ statement and submitted it for printing
in the Congressional Record. The special rule for the consideration of the Senate amendment
sometimes included language stating that the chair of the committee shall insert into the
Congressional Record “such material as he may deem explanatory of the motion.”51
Even taking into account the usual use of special rules to set the terms for consideration of the
compromise, floor consideration of a conference report might differ procedurally from floor
consideration of a Senate amendment. Clause 9 of House Rule XXI requires the public disclosure
of any “congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits” included in a
conference report. This rule, like other House rules, can be waived by a special rule; however, if a
special rule waives House Rule XXI, clause 9, then a Representative can make a point of order
against the special rule itself. The point of order is disposed of by a debatable question of
consideration; this means that if any Member makes a point of order against a special rule on the
grounds that it waives the earmark disclosure requirement, the presiding officer will submit to the
House the question: “will the House now consider the conference report?” The question is then
50 For more information, see CRS Report RS21629, Sufficiency of Signatures on Conference Reports, by Richard S.
Beth and Elizabeth Rybicki.
51 See, for example, H.Res. 1488 for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638 in the 110th Congress.
The explanatory material submitted for printing in relation to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
2638 appears at Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (September 24, 2008), pp. H9427-H9433.
Congressional Research Service
21
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
debated for up to 20 minutes, equally divided.52 In contrast, clause 9 of Rule XXI does not apply
to amendments between the houses.53
An additional difference in the consideration of a conference report, as opposed to amendments
between the houses, is that there may be an opportunity for a member of the minority party to
offer a motion to recommit a conference report. When the House is the first chamber to consider a
conference report, a motion to recommit the conference report with or without instructions is in
order.54 The motion to recommit is a prerogative of the minority party, and it is not debatable.55
Table 2. Amendment Exchange and Conference Committees in the House: A Brief
Comparison of Key Procedures
Conference Committee
Amendment Exchange
Opportunity for a member of the minority party to offer
No motion to instruct available
a non-binding motion to instruct conferees, which is
debatable for up to one hour
Speaker formally appoints conferees, sometimes for
Negotiators are not formally identified
limited purposes, such as to negotiate only over
identified portions of the matter in conference
Conference reports are typical y considered under the
Amendments between the houses are typically
terms of a special rule that might waive rules restricting
considered under the terms of a special rule that might
the content of conference reports
waive rules restricting the content of House
amendments to Senate amendments
Joint explanatory statements, which describe the
Joint explanatory statements are not required for an
positions of each chamber and the compromises
amendment exchange, although sometimes similar
reached, are required to accompany conference reports
documents are submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record
At least one formal, public meeting of the conference
No public meetings are held, as negotiators are not
committee will be held
formally identified
Earmarks disclosure rule applies to conference reports; if Earmark disclosure rule does not apply to amendments
special rule waives it, a point of order can be made
between the houses
against the special rule
Conference report is voted on as a single package; it
House can consider questions separately by considering
cannot be amended
multiple amendments to a Senate bill or Senate
amendment
Often an opportunity for member of the minority party
No motion to recommit available
to offer a non-debatable motion to recommit the
conference report
Note: This table briefly identifies some of the procedural differences between conference committee and amendment
exchange procedures in the Senate that are discussed more fully (and with references to relevant standing rules,
standing orders, and precedents) in the text of this report.
52 CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter.
53 See letter from the Office of the Parliamentarian submitted for printing in the Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 153 (October 3, 2007), pp. H11184-H11185.
54 For more information on the motion to recommit with instructions, see CRS Report 98-381, Instructing House
Conferees, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
55 The Rules Committee can report a rule that precludes the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit a conference
report, but it rarely does so (Deschler, ch. 33, sec. 32.26, pp. 1100-1101).
Congressional Research Service
22
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Case Study: The Amendment Exchange on
H.R. 3221, 110th Congress
A detailed discussion and diagram of one case in the 110th Congress when the Senate considered
multiple House amendments serves to illustrate some of the procedural options, and potential
procedural complexities, in an amendment exchange. In April of 2008, the Senate passed H.R.
3221 with a full-text substitute amendment and an amendment to the title. The Senate sent the
newly-titled “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008” to the House.56 In May, the House agreed to
three separate amendments to the Senate full-text substitute and sent those to the Senate.
Senate precedents require that the chamber consider House amendments in the order that they
affect the Senate text (in this case, the text of the substitute amendment the Senate had agreed to
in April). Each of the House amendments, however, addressed a group of titles in the Senate
amendment that fell within the jurisdiction of a single House committee. As a result, some of the
House amendments affected non-contiguous titles of the Senate amendment. House Amendment
No. 1 struck Titles 1 through 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the Senate substitute and inserted five new titles,
making up a “housing package,” that were largely based on bills that had previously been
considered by the House Financial Services Committee. House Amendment No. 2 struck Titles 6,
8, and 10 of the Senate substitute and inserted a new title consisting largely of the text of a
housing assistance tax bill previously reported by the House Ways and Means Committee. House
Amendment No. 3 proposed inserting a new section stating that the bill (and other federal laws)
did not preempt state laws regulating foreclosure of residential real property or the treatment of
foreclosed property.57
In order to comply with the Senate requirement that amendments be considered in the order that
they affect Senate text, the Senate considered the three House amendments as though they were
nine separate amendments. Under the Senate reorganization of the House amendments, House
Amendment No. 1 struck Titles 1 through 5 of the Senate substitute and inserted the five titles
comprising the “housing package.” House Amendment No. 2 struck Title 6; House Amendment
No. 3 struck Title 7; House Amendment 4 struck Title 8; House Amendment No. 5 struck Title 9;
House Amendment No. 6 struck Title 10; House Amendment No. 7 struck Title 11; House
Amendment No. 8 inserted the tax title; and House Amendment No. 9 inserted the proposed
section affirming state laws (See Figure 1).
56 The Senate took up a bill (H.R. 3221) passed by the House the previous year, instead of passing a new Senate bill, in
part because the Constitution requires that bills including revenue provisions originate in the House, and the Senate-
approved text contained revenue provisions. In August of 2007, the House had passed H.R. 3221 as a revenue bill, the
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007. When the Senate took up H.R. 3221 in 2008, a related
energy measure, H.R. 6, had already become law (P.L. 110-140). For more information on the procedures related to the
consideration of the energy legislation in 2007, see CRS Report RL34611, Whither the Role of Conference Committees:
An Analysis, by Walter J. Oleszek, pp. 14-18.
57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for the Consideration of the Senate Amendments to the bill
(H.R. 3221), 110th Cong., May 6, 2008, 110-622 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 5-6.
Congressional Research Service
23
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Senate Consideration of the First House Amendment: Motion to Concur With
an Amendment
With the House amendments reorganized, the Majority Leader could then propose actions on the
amendments, provided he proceeded in the order they affected the Senate text. On June 19, 2008,
the Majority Leader moved that the Senate concur in House Amendment No. 1, with an
amendment. The bipartisan Senate amendment offered by the Majority Leader on behalf of the
chair and ranking member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee proposed to
replace the “housing package” of the other chamber. The Majority Leader did not “fill the tree,”
and therefore the Senate amendment he proposed was open to further amendment. By unanimous
consent, the Senate required that amendments offered that day be on the subject of housing. The
agreement further provided that no other motions, except motions to table and reconsider, be in
order during the day’s consideration.58
On July 19, Senators offered six amendments to the Senate amendment offered by the Majority
Leader to the first House amendment. Although under the rules, only a single second-degree
amendment to an amendment offered with a motion to concur is in order at one time, Senators
asked and received unanimous consent to set the other pending amendments aside so they could
offer their own amendments. On several occasions that day and on subsequent days, however,
unanimous consent was not granted to a Senator who attempted to set aside pending amendments
in order to offer another amendment.59
The Majority Leader filed cloture on the motion to concur with an amendment on Friday, June 20,
2008, and two days of session later, on Tuesday, June 24, the Senate agreed to invoke cloture by a
vote of 83-9. Of the six amendments that had been offered to the proposed amendment to the first
House amendment, the Senate agreed to three of them.60 These three amendments were second-
degree amendments to the Senate amendment to the House amendment. They were not
“amendments between the houses,” but instead can be understood as Senate floor amendments
offered to an “amendment between the houses.” As such, all three were incorporated into the
Senate amendment to the first House amendment before the Senate, on June 25, agreed to the
motion to concur in the first House amendment with an amendment.
Senate Consideration of the Next Six House Amendments: Motion to Concur
After the Senate disposed of the first House amendment, it was in order to consider the additional
House amendments in the order that they affected the Senate text. On June 26, 2008, the Majority
58 Prior to agreeing to this unanimous consent request, a Senator received assurances from the Majority Leader that the
leader would discuss the possibility of allowing a motion to refer (Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (June
19, 2008) pp. S5775-S5776). Later that day, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement to allow one
motion to refer the House message on H.R. 3221. Under the terms of the agreement, debate on the motion was limited
by to 30 minutes, no amendments were in order, and the motion was subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold. The
agreement further provided that if the motion was not agreed to, the motion would be withdrawn and no further motion
to refer would be in order during consideration of the House message on H.R. 3221 (Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 154 (June 19, 2008), p. S5814).
59 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (June 19, 2008), pp. S5809 and S5811. On the following day, other
Senators unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments to offer another (June 20,
2008, pp. S5925 and S5926). See also proceedings on June 24, 2008, pp. S5975-S5976.
60 Of the remaining three, one failed on a roll call vote, another was withdrawn, and the third fell on a point of order
after a motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act failed.
Congressional Research Service
24
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Leader moved that the Senate concur in the next six House amendments as reorganized by the
Senate. Each of the House amendments proposed to strike a title of the Senate substitute for H.R.
3221 (See Figure 1). The Majority Leader then immediately filed cloture on the motion to
concur.61
After the Majority Leader made the motion to concur, no other motions to dispose of the House
amendments were in order. The motion to concur has precedence over the motion to disagree;
therefore, with the motion to concur pending, a motion to disagree was not in order. The motion
to concur does not have precedence over the motion to concur with an amendment. No motion to
concur with an amendment could be offered in this situation, however, because the House
amendments were all simple motions to strike. Under long-standing Senate precedents, motions
to strike are not subject to amendment.62 Furthermore, the Senate had agreed by unanimous
consent that no further motions to refer would be in order during consideration of the House
message.
Pursuant to the terms of a unanimous consent agreement, the Senate voted, 76-10, on July 7,
2008, to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendments to strike. The
following day, the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to the motion to concur.
Senate Consideration of the Final Two House Amendments: Motion to Disagree
With the other amendments disposed of, the only House amendments remaining for Senate
consideration were the proposals to insert the House tax title and to insert the section concerning
state foreclosure laws and regulations. On July 8, 2008, the Majority Leader made a motion that
the Senate disagree to these two House amendments and filed cloture on the motion.
The Majority Leader then used his preferential recognition to “fill the tree” by offering the
following: 63
• A motion to concur in the House amendment adding a new title with a first-
degree amendment (No. 5067), which proposed adding a sentence: “This title
shall become effective in 3 days.”
• A second-degree amendment (No. 5068) to amendment No. 6067, which
proposed to strike “3” and insert “2.”
After the Majority Leader made those motions, no further motions proposing action on the House
amendments were in order until one was disposed of or laid aside by unanimous consent. The
Majority Leader could “fill the tree” on a motion proposing to dispose of multiple House
amendments (one to insert a new title and a second to insert a new section) by offering a motion
that only concerned the first House amendment. No motion to concur in the second House
amendment, with or without an amendment, was in order.
61 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (June 26, 2008), p. S6224.
62 When the Senate is amending a bill, with a motion to strike pending it is in order to offer an amendment to the text
proposed to be stricken. In the case of an amendment between the houses, in contrast, the text proposed to be stricken is
the Senate amendment, and the Senate cannot amend its own amendment.
63 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (July 8, 2008), S6448. Recall that under a previous unanimous consent
agreement, no motions to refer were in order. See footnote 54.
Congressional Research Service
25
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Two days of session later, on July 10, 2008, the Senate agreed to the motion to invoke cloture on
the motion to disagree to the final two House amendments by a vote of 84-12. The motion to
concur with an amendment (No. 5067) and the amendment to that (No. 5068) fell when cloture
was invoked, pursuant to the Senate cloture rule requiring that the motion to disagree (on which
cloture was invoked) remain the business before the Senate until disposed of. The following day
the Senate agreed to the motion to disagree to the amendments, and the message of the Senate
stating all of its actions on the House amendments was sent to the House.
House Action: House Concurs in Senate Amendment (to House Amendment to
Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221) with an Amendment
The Senate, after agreeing to the three motions described above, messaged to the House only one
amendment: the substitute amendment for the “housing package” sent from the other chamber. It
also communicated its agreement to the House proposal to strike Titles 6 through 11 of the first
Senate substitute. Similarly, the Senate communicated its disagreement to the House proposal to
insert a tax title and a section concerning state law. In short, the Senate, by its actions, effectively
combined the matters in disagreement between the chambers into a single large amendment that
was another version of the housing bill.
More precisely, the Senate sent the following message to the House:
• The Senate concurs in the House amendment, striking section 1 through title V
and inserting certain language, to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3221)
with an amendment.
• The Senate concurs in the House amendments, striking titles VI through XI, to
the Senate amendment to the aforesaid bill.
• The Senate disagrees to the amendments of the House, adding a new title and
inserting a new section to the amendment of the Senate to the aforesaid bill.
The House, pursuant to the terms of a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules, agreed to
the Senate amendment with an amendment on July 23, 2008. The House amendment was yet
another version of the full bill, proposing to insert text in lieu of that proposed by the Senate.
According to both Senators and Representatives, the amendment resembled earlier versions of the
legislation and resulted from bicameral negotiations.64 The special rule also provided through a
self-executing provision that the House recede from any other remaining amendments or
disagreements.
When the House further amended the Senate amendment, it had agreed to an amendment in the
third degree. Although under the precedents of the House and Senate, an amendment between the
chambers can be amended in only two degrees, the House was able to offer a further amendment
because it considered the motion under the terms of a special rule.
64 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (July 23, 2008), pp. S7090, H6991, and H6998.
Congressional Research Service
26
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Final Step: Senate Concurs in House Amendment (to Senate Amendment to
House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221)
After the Senate received the House message on July 23, the Majority Leader called up the House
amendment (to the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 3221). At this point, the Majority Leader wished to propose that the Senate agree with this
final bicameral compromise so that the bill could be forwarded to the President. To prevent
another Senator from making any other motion, he made two additional tree-filling motions. The
Majority Leader offered:
• A motion to concur in the House amendment.
• A motion to concur in the House amendment with a first-degree amendment (No.
5103), which proposed adding a sentence: “The provisions of this act shall
become effective 2 days after enactment.”
• A second-degree amendment (No. 5104) to amendment No. 6067, which
proposed to strike “2” and insert “1.”
After “filling the tree,” the Majority Leader filed cloture on the motion to concur. The Leader also
asked unanimous consent that no motions to refer be in order when the House message was
before the Senate. A Senator “reserved the right to object” in order to express his desire to offer a
further amendment. The Majority Leader withdrew his unanimous consent request and instead
made a motion to proceed to another matter.65 A motion to refer is not in order when a different
question is before the Senate.
Two days of session later, on July 25, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the motion to concur
by a vote of 80-13. The next day the Senate voted to concur in the House amendment, and under
the terms of a unanimous consent agreement the motion to concur with an amendment was
withdrawn (and the second-degree amendment to that therefore fell). The Senate concurring in
the House amendment was the final congressional action necessary to clear the measure to be sent
to the President.
65 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (July 23, 2008), pp.S7130-S7131.
Congressional Research Service
27
Figure 1. The Amendment Exchange on H.R. 3221, 110th Congress
Source: Figure developed by author based on congressional actions (see text of report for Congressional Record citations). Graphic design by Jamie L. Hutchinson of the
Congressional Research Service.
CRS-28
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Appendix. Tables on Procedures Used to Resolve
Differences, 1999-2008
Data on the manner of resolving differences were collected for recent Congresses from the House
Final Calendars. The data are for measures that became public law. The total number of
conference committees presented in Table A-1 therefore does not include conference committees
on measures that do not become law, such as budget resolutions, nor does it include unsuccessful
conferences or measures that went through conference committee and were eventually vetoed.
Table A-1. Resolving Differences on Measures That Became Public Law
106th to 110th Congresses (1999-2008)
Agreed to
More
Agreed to
Amendment of
Complicated
Without
Second-Acting
Amendment
Conference
Congress
Amendment
Chamber
Exchange
Committee
106th
(1999-2000)
436 90 16 38
107th (2001-2002)
289
48
7
33
108th (2003-2004)
406
55
2
35
109th (2005-2006)
395
53
6
28
110th (2007-2008)
371
69
11
9
Source: House Final Calendars. The number of measures “agreed to without amendment” was calculated by
subtracting the total counted in the other three categories (agreeing to second-acting chamber amendment;
more complicated amendment exchange; and conference committee) from the total number of public laws.
Note: If both chambers appointed conferees, the measure was included in the count of conference committee,
even if some differences were resolved through amendment exchange.
Table A-2. House Consideration of Senate Amendments by Special Rule, Suspension,
or Unanimous Consent (to Measures That Became Public Law)
106th through 110th Congresses (1999-2008)
Congress
Special Rule
Suspension of the Rules
Unanimous Consent
106th
(1999-2000)
13 44 22
107th (2001-2002)
5
26
17
108th (2003-2004)
1
24
16
109th (2005-2006)
4
28
9
110th
(2007-2008)
17 34 15
Source: Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules and the Legislative Information System (LIS).
Notes: The table reports the number of House actions (in each category) on Senate amendments; it is not a
count of bills. The count of special rules only includes rules agreed to by the House and it does not include rules
that also arranged for a measure to go to conference.
Congressional Research Service
29
Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects
Author Contact Information
Elizabeth Rybicki
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
erybicki@crs.loc.gov, 7-0644
Acknowledgments
The content of this report was greatly improved by the contributions of Richard S. Beth, Walter J. Oleszek,
and James V. Saturno. The author is also grateful for the research assistance of Jennifer Devine and the
graphic design assistance of Jamie L. Hutchinson.
Congressional Research Service
30